Author: Chris Carson
Date: 09:20:51 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 11:48:05, Albert Silver wrote: >On June 20, 2001 at 11:38:57, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 20, 2001 at 11:21:14, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On June 20, 2001 at 10:54:47, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>>The rules are different. In the USCF, to become a master, you simply have to >>>>>get your rating over 2200. Nothing else. In FIDE, to become a GM, you have to >>>>>get your rating over 2500 _and_ produce a 2600+ TPR over a bunch of games. >>>>> >>>>>pretty simple, really... >>>> >>>>Bob what Fide standards do you use for calling computers GM's at 5 min and 30 >>>>min chess? You want to site the Fide standards for your claim on this, and I >>>>will retract my own standards for 40/2hours, and what Fide standard has a >>>>computer made for you claim that computers are International masters. >>>> >>>>Is Bob Hyatt the only one who can come up with his own standards. Very >>>>Hypocritical. >>> >>>Nonsense. We all have our own standards. All these discussions are only about >>>our own opinions anyhow. He never said Fide announced they were blitz GMs and >>>OTB IMs. He stated this as his opinion. What else could it be? There's no such >>>thing as a GM-strength title is there? As to differentiating between Blitz and >>>40/2 I *really* don't understand your arguments at all, with all due respect. Do >>>you really intend to argue that blitz results are somehow indicative of 40/2 >>>results? >>> >>>Just as a sidenote, I don't think you will convince him they are GMs (or >>>GM-strength) by starting 257 threads on the subject with tons of stats on how >>>weak GMs can sometimes be or become. For example, one of your threads states >>>Westerinen was less than 2500 Elo some 25 years ago. So what? How does this >>>suddenly make Deep Junior, or any program for that matter, a GM? >> >>I will answer your question when you answer this.... > >Np. > >>How does Bob Hyatt claim >>that computers are IM's at 40/2 and GM's 5 min and 30 min chess. > >How? Simple. It's his opinion. You can agree with it or not. > >>What Fide >>standards or any standards did he use to make those claims, > >Although there may be plenty of factors involved in its formulation, I suspect >the standard Bob used was.... his opinion. > >>and if you apply >>what ever standard fairly Bob used to claim computer are GM at fast time >>controls. Why does this not make Computers GM at 40/2? > >Why? Because, it's not his opinion. BTW, why does this bother you so much? So he >doesn't think PC programs are GMs, so what? Besides, I for one would still like >to understand why fast time results should in any way reflect 40/2 results. > > Albert Albert, I missed it, where did Mark say that blitz results had any impact on 40/2? Mark is just pointing out a flaw in the logic that says programs are GM at one time control but IM at another. If the comparison is based on results, then computers are GM at 40/2 based on results (ELO), if it is based on Title, no program has a IM or GM title at blitz or 40/2 or anyother time control. I think Mark is just asking why someone would claim IM but cry foul when someone else claims GM (Mark can have an opinion). Mark is just saying that IM is not valid if you rely on Title recognition. No computer has ever achieved a FIDE IM or GM, so the IM argument has the same flaws as the GM argument. For me, titles don't matter, results do. Average GM 2521. Computer programs are better than average GM results and on fast hw are in the Top 100 for all FIDE rated players. :) Everyone is entitled to an opinion. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.