Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:35:03 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2000 at 19:28:16, Jerry Adams wrote: >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. 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 > > > Your ideals and opinions are basically stupid, obviously no international >master could have such a Score as Deep Jr. did in such a Strong GM tournament !! >You people defy belief!! Your ad-hominum attack shows that you have no sensible arguments and resort to name calling. Your lack of mathematical rigor is actually rather funny. Your failure to grasp the logical basis of his argument is even more hilarious. Note that Mogens nowhere claimed that Deep Junior is *not* of GM strength. Rather, he simply stated that is has not been adequately proven. He is absolutely correct. And they may or may not be of GM strength. The question at hand is "Are they of GM strength or not?" The answer at hand is "Not enough data yet, according to the definition of the term 'GM' proposed by FIDE." Will you follow up with another brilliant rejoinder rather than a logical argument? To call Mogens stupid for understanding what you have completely failed to grasp is absolutely hysterical irony.
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.