Author: greg moller
Date: 12:34:37 06/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 1999 at 15:18:26, Mark Young wrote: >On June 25, 1999 at 14:40:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On June 25, 1999 at 09:17:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>This is the point I have tried to explain to you several times. What "GM" >>>would lose such a game to a 2200 player? Can you think of one? I see _all_ >>>programs lose to such players on ICC. Some repeatedly to humans that are >>>not even 'titled' by FIDE. And so long as this continues, I have a _hard_ >>>time thinking of the programs as "GM" players... >> >>There is a point to this but it's important to avoid taking it too far. >>Computer strengths and weaknesses will not match perfectly with human strengths >>and weaknesses no matter how strong the computers get. >> >>It's like declaring that until computers can solve that famous locked pawn >>problem where the game is a draw despite huge extra material (the weaker side >>simply has to avoid taking a rook, and then hide behind the pawns), that they >>can't be masters. Clearly they are masters of some variety despite being less >>than instantly able to solve that problem. >> >>They are very strong in some areas and weaker in others, and it might not be >>true that they have to be strong in *all* areas to succeed. It is a matter of >>determining the degree to which their weaknesses can be exploited by humans. >>It's getting harder for the humans all the time. >> >>bruce > >This is why it is important to trust the results of games played vs. humans be >it a GM or not, or a win or a loss. You can because to subjective and start >dismissing and justifying away all successes of the chess programs if you only >key in on the programs weaknesses. We all know the weaknesses of computer >programs, but if the weaknesses are or are not counter balanced by the programs >strength it will show in the results. It is ironic that humans try to justify >their failures, but for computer programs we try to justify their successes. It's still possible that the top programs are GM-strength DESPITE these weaknesses, which would only mean that the strengths are far beyond what GMs can do, but that's a known fact already, or should be. More games against various human styles and levels of strength are required to ascertain the true strength of the programs. Such games are sorely needed. Without them all we've got is idle speculation, more or less. regards, gm
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.