Author: Drazen Marovic
Date: 15:40:10 07/14/00
Scientifically is a comp GM strength? According to some here no, though i'm not convinced of that oppinion either. Regardless though those who make the now fairly BOLD claim that comps are not GM strength, will begin immediately now to have their oppinions on the issue to be viewed as extremly shaky(whether their oppinions should be looked upon in such a manner or not!). Especially considering that J6 has probably been on the market almost a year(maybe longer). If a comp plays one game in 10 at "GM strength" it means that it plays "GM strength"( just not always)! Further All this talk of well GMs will start analysing all of a comps weaknesses and then beat them makes them not GM strength is ridiculous. Say Anand spent the next 3 years examining every game that Maurice Ashley has played in the last 3 years(plus his current games) Anand then manages to beat Ashley 13.5 out of 15 games(fischer beat stiffer competition 6 -0!). Would that have any bearing on whether Ashley was "GM strength?" I think not. The term "GM strength" what does it mean? It means different things to different folks, though perhaps it means(AT THE LEAST) to play a game of chess vs GM opposition equal or greater to drawing the GM opponent when the qaulity of play of the GM opponent in the game would be considered by most GM players to be considered on par with the play of the average GM. Though one can play and lose and still have played GM strength chess, Because Anand lost to Kramnik does not meant that he didn't play "GM stregth chess".
This page took 0.01 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.