Author: Mike S.
Date: 17:35:49 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2002 at 19:25:23, Terry Ripple wrote: >On October 15, 2002 at 17:55:27, Rick Terry wrote: > >> Why? Because it made a move not even a 1500 elo player would make in game 2 >>when it played it's bishop back to the F8 square. Do I really believe this?? >>ofcourse not!! But this is the kind of rediculous Logic used by Hyatt and others >>to Prove Fritz is not a Grandmaster!! It can beat Kramnnik two games straight >>and draw 2, but it isn't a Grandmaster because it makes weak , rediculous moves >>at times, Beautiful Logic!!!! > >With this logic, then you couldn't consider Kramnik Grandmaster strength either >because he made a one move blunder in game 5 that most 1600 or 1700 players >would see!! > >Yes, Deep fritz is definitly Grandmaster strength! > >Don't forget that not even "Kasporov" in his match with Kramnik could get a win! Maybe there are two definitions of "Grandmaster". (1) The FIDE GM title is earned by certain performances, IOW results so we can say if a computer performs like that, so that it would earn the title if it was a human, it's (like) a Grandmaster by that definition. - But (2) when it's said "it is not GM strength", I think this is most often a short form of saying "it has weaknesses GM's usually don't have and therefore won't be able to perform constantly at GM level as soon as the opponents have learned to play against those weaknesses effectively" (which is a bit long... so it's shortened to "it's not GM strength". Note that definition (2) is computer chess only, not FIDE. For FIDE, only the results count. Definition (3) is also quite common: "Only humans can be Grandmasters, not computers." "Why not?!" "Because computers are no humans..." (x=y explained by saying y=x, argueing hopeless) :o)) Regards, M.Scheidl
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.