Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:48:57 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1998 at 05:00:33, Nouveau wrote: > >On October 21, 1998 at 03:16:39, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On October 20, 1998 at 11:45:57, blass uri wrote: >>[snip] >>>>Why do we need hundreds, maybe thousands of games between computers to evaluate >>>>relative strength, when few dozens are more than needed for human GMs ? >>> >>>I do not think that few dozens are more than needed for human GMs >>Indeed, to become a GM a huge number of games must be played. Can anyone >>demonstrate a player given a GM title with only 'a few dozens' of games? > >We must separate things : a chess program is born with a level, once you have it >on your harddisk, it won't make any progress (beside learning functions), so it >has a level that won't move (as Amir said). Everyone has certain abilities. But to imagine that Kasparov was a GM at 5 years old is ludicrous. I'll bet he played chess by then, though. >A human needs experience, learning and work to reach this level, but once he HAS >this level he doesn't need a huge number of games to prove it. How do we know that he HAS the level without a huge number of games?
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.