Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 16:39:36 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2000 at 19:22:16, Drazen Marovic wrote: >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. No, it's not an opinion. There isn't enough evidence. >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! The quality of play hasn't been overwhelming IMHO, even though it's very good at achieving draws. The question is how it would perform against players below GM strength, but experienced in playing against computer programs. The data is insufficient for conclusions. Personally, I do believe that Deep Junior with this particular hardware is a GM player, but that is only my opinion and unsupported by fact. 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.