Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 09:16:23 01/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 08:30:45, Leon Stancliff wrote: >First, I did not include the Hoffman game because it was not completed. I do not >think FIDE would include incompleted games in a rating calculation. Second, my >list had a draw and a win against Grabliauskas whereas yours had a draw and a >loss. If you are correct, the score would have been 10-10. Apparently the source of the confusion is that the result was been posted incorrectly on the Rebel website. In a post yesterday, Ed Schroeder verified that the correct result was a loss for Rebel. As for the Hoffman game, I really think it has to count, and even Ed agrees with this. He was trying to squeeze some extra speed out of an overclocked machine, and he paid the price. I might also add that Rebel chose a bad opening in that game (not because of the hardware problems, either) and I think that Hoffman would have won regardless of any hardware problems. It would certainly count as a loss in any official competition. --Peter With an even score >against an average opponent rating of 2510 I arrive at a rating for Rebel of >2510. This would be somewhat more questionable than the 2545, but still above >the 2500 mark. A 2510 mark would still place Rebel at the 356 position among the >650 living grandmasters. > >Granted that some of these are over the hill. However, I doubt seriously that >300 of them were! It will be extremely interesting to see what happens when >Rebel-Tiger competes against them on a 1Ghz machine. In my opinion the top >micros will be playing on such machines by the end of the year 2000, and will by >playing at about 2575 Elo.
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.