Author: Mark Young
Date: 09:52:47 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 12:44:55, Albert Silver wrote: >On June 20, 2001 at 12:20:51, Chris Carson wrote: > >>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? > >That's not what I said. > >>Mark is just pointing out a flaw in the logic that says programs are GM at one >>time control but IM at another. > >It's not a flaw in logic. The fact that programs are proportionately stronger at >blitz time controls as opposed to 40/2 is pretty much indisputable. This is >hardly new. Saying they are GMs at blitz and IMs at 40/2 isn't a statement of >Fide titles of course, but merely an opinion of their relative strength. Yes, >it's just an opinion. My question is: why all these arguments and threads only >on Bob's opinion? Because Chris, Bob, myself, and others are still debating this issue. Sorry you think that this should not be debated. I don't understand why you would object, I don't see Bob objecting, he is still posting, I don't see Chris objecting, he is still posting, I don't see others objecting, since this post was started by none of the above, but one of the "others". Notice the key last word there. If Bob were in charge of >bestowing titles, I could understand, but that's not the case. So what's the big >deal? Why is Bob's opinion (there's that keyword again) on programs such an >issue? Those at least were my questions at this point, but I can see that this >is clearly something personal since instead of answering them I was thrown a lot >of nonsensical rhetoric in my face on this being a free world, and to stop >whining or buzz off. So much for intelligent argumentation. > > Albert > >> >>Everyone is entitled to an opinion. :) > >My point exactly. > >> >>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.