Author: Drazen Marovic
Date: 22:59:21 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
Listen I AM a GM!! and have probably been playing chess longer than you have been alive i have played and beaten some of the best in the world when they were the best. I know something that you will never know, i KNOW what GM strength is. Since you don't know you really have no need to argue it is you who are wrong. >On July 14, 2000 at 19:22:16, Drazen Marovic 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. >> >>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. > >Fortunately, science has no need of opinions. It can ride squarely on the back >of mathematics. It uses things called "Hypotheses" and if they are testable and >verifiable we can call the outcome a conclusion. > >>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! > >Ah. The "They feel like GM performaces" argument. You're in good company >because a lot of people agree with you. I would hazard a guess that most of >them do. If you took a poll, they would probably make you think you knew what >you are talking about, because you will win the poll. Nevertheless, you're >wrong. > >>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.