Author: Drazen Marovic
Date: 16:22:16 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2000 at 19:00:32, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 14, 2000 at 18:40:10, Drazen Marovic wrote: > >> Scientifically is a comp GM strength? According to some here no, though i'm >>not convinced of that oppinion either. > >Science has nothing to do with opinion. Apparently reading has nothing to do with understanding either! It is an oppinion currently as to whether their is enough evidence to say scientifically if a comp is GM strength. Further again this term of "GM strength" Does it merely mean a statistical result or is it really more substantive to refer to qaulity of play! If your average bootom of the barrel 2500 GM played in 3 round robin 10 game events with Kasparov anand And Kramnik The bottom of the barrel 2500 GM would probably most likely not get his GM Norm much less get the 3 required. That would not necessarily mean that he didn't demonstrate "GM strength" play. Geesh the current world champion is barely going to get a GM norm in Dortmund and Kasparov isn't even there! There's not enough statistical evidence >to support the Junior GM claim and that's it. But by all means, take a vote. >Then Junior would be a democratic GM instead of an actual GM. I would vote for >it, if it had a built-in espresso machine. Sadly, it doesn't. > >Best wishes... >Mogens
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.