Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 18:26:11 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2000 at 19:39:36, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. Achieving draws a win and one loss in _this competition_ suggests that it would do quite well Wayne > >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.