Author: blass uri
Date: 23:03:34 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 01:35:24, Baldomero Garcia, Jr. wrote: >"Effectively" I don't think that the computer GM strength has been answered. >If DJ had achieved its 3rd GM norm (even though it wouldn't have the title), >then I'd say that the answer has been "effectively" answered. > >There have been plenty of IMs who score one or two GM norms and can't get >a third norm or just can't maintain the required minimum rating. > >Who knows if the more DJ plays against humans the more they learn about >its tendencies and are able to adjust to the way it plays before it is >able to achieve all the requirements to be considered a GM. > >I think there is a high probability that DJ (or any other top computer >program) would be able to achieve all the requirements to be a GM. >However, that hasn't happened yet. > >Speaking of what "GM strength" means, I think we look at it from today's >perspective. It is no secret that it is far easier to get the GM title >today than it was say 10 or 20 years ago (notice that I didn't say it was >easy, I said easier). I remember GM Browne saying that the year he got >his GM title, only one other player got it: Karpov. In those days, the >GMs were pretty close to being "world championship contenders". Today, >someone getting a GM title is still far away from being considered a world >championship contender. It does not prove that it is easier to get the GM title. It is possible that players are more proffesional today. I know that a long time ago even the world champion did not get a lot of money and today the situation is different. Uri > >Baldo
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.