Author: Don Dailey
Date: 10:41:43 07/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 1998 at 11:13:41, Pat King wrote: > >On July 15, 1998 at 16:20:01, Don Dailey wrote: > > >>What's the point of any title? >> >>If you have never earned a tile or worked hard for one (in any field), >>then I can see how you might not "get it." >> >> >>- Don Pat, >I have indeed earned recognition in various fields, and I am happy for my >success. My computer programs, however, care not a whit how good or bad they >are, nor do I care for their feelings. I don't want to embarass you, but the awards are not for the programs themselves. They are for the team of people involved in it's success. And they also serve other purposes such as generating interest outside of the field among many others. >Nor does the chess playing community in general care whether a >computer earns a GM title. Only a subset of this, the computer >chess community, cares. I really don't see your point here. Are you trying to say that titles have no meaning if people in others fields don't care about them? Or are you supporting my viewpoint that the computer chess community might care? I'm not going to respond to your next post unless it is a little more reasonable sounding. I don't care if you disagree about having a GM title but your response has been pretty extreme and doesn't have any good points I can think about. All I have in this post from you is that computers don't have feelings and people in other fields don't care about our awards. And it's tone suggests that you believe you have refuted the whole idea of having a GM title with a couple of flip remarks. >As you suggested, only a seperate, computer GM >title could work, with standards to be set by this caring subgroup. Even if it >should come to pass, I think few outside the group would give such titles much >notice, and I think comparisons to human GMs would still be futile, as the >conditions for the computer and human titles would be different. This paragraph is reasonable Pat. I have come to the same conclusion about having our own standard and also that I doubt it will ever come to pass. For me it's nothing more than a specualative excercise which I love to do from time to time. I don't care if those outside the group give it much notice, that's true of any title. I could care less who is the current SUMO wrestling champion, but I'm sure the sumo champion cares and problably millions of loyal fans. I don't think that THEY care that I don't care either! The only way to compare fairly is to put the computers inside the human system, and then there would still be complaints when the computer finally did get the GM title. I have never seen a case of any computer winning ANY thing without a lot of people discounting the achievement. In fact, I've rarely seen a computer win a computer event without a lot of people (mostly sore losers) discounting the achievement. If we had a separate title and the made the qualification very strict we might possibly get around this for the most part. For instance we would have to require a higher standard of excellence that a human would need to be able to REASONABLY make the claim that some micro had achieved the EQUIVALENT of a GM norm and a true COMPUTER GM norm. And personally I would like to see the standard be higher anyway, just so that none of us ever has to listen to those who say it's not as good. I would rather have the option to be able to say this myself to them. Personally, I would LOVE to see this. It would give us a new goal to shoot for. The top few programs could make a try for this every year or two until it happened. It would generate a lot of interest in the computer chess community and probably generate interest outside of the computer chess community too as people got interested in the attempts. However I'm not holding my breath! >Pat
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.