Author: Drazen Marovic
Date: 23:55:22 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 02:13:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 01:59:21, Drazen Marovic wrote: >>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. > >I won't argue that you are a better chess player than I will ever be, or even >that you understand strength better than I do. But suppose that DJ falls to >stonewall by any chess expert. Is it still a GM? The statement i made has nothing to do with that. If a GM player loses to a weaker player does that mean that he's not a GM? As i said previously, GM strength and GM title are two different things. If a comp plays one game in 10 at GM strength, then it plays GM strength chess(just not always!). It is not even a question as to whether comps can play "GM STRENGTH" chess. Comps will never be GM's because they are not human! "GM strength" is another issue. When Nezhmetidinov(IM) played Poluguyevsky his immortal brilliancy, there is no question that the game and the play was "GM strength". GM strength does not mean GM title. If i can know the weaknesses of any player in the world (and they have no gamesmanship i.e can change to play against my particular weaknesses i could beat them consistantly(if i wasn't old:)). It would have no bearing on whether they played "GM Strength chess". It would just mean that my chess appeared stronger against them because i'd have more information about them than most other players. If kramnik could get ahold of the preparation of all the GM's before the tournament and knew exactly how they planned to play he would win the tournament hands down. He'd be playing stronger against them because he'd have more knowledge. It would not mean that the other players were playing weaker than usual, or not playing "GM strength" chess. > >I have a degree in mathematics. Therefore, I suspect (unless you are also a >mathematician) that I know some things in that area that you don't. > >I have not argued that DJ is not a GM. I have only argued that DJ is not >mathematically proven to be of GM strength. In fact, I am correct about that. > No you are not right Mathematics does not prove anything about "GM strength"! Statistics judges the result not the qaulity of play. If khalifman or Huebner do not score a GM norm in this tournament it has no bearing on whether the qaulity of their chess play was "GM strength". If a rich individual pays off enough people statistically he could get the "GM TITLE". It would not be an actual statement about the strength of his play. You may well know the recent discussion of Myanmar GMs(though some are better than many think). >One million emotional arguements or artistic arguments or chess expert opinions >do not alter that. Is DJ a GM? I think it *might* be of GM strength -- even >that the evidence is leaning that way. But I not only think it has not been >proven, I really do believe that once people figure out how to play >anti-computer strategy it may not pan out to be the GM player you imagine. Because you can consistantly beat someone because you have extra knowledge of their weaknesses does not mean that they don't play "GM strength" chess. > >Have you considered the Anticomputer chess site of Raphael Vasquez? I think >most GM's have no idea how to play against computers. Further, that there are >many IM's that can do much better against computers than the average GM because >they know how to play them. This is a sin of the GM, since if it is your life, >you ought to understand your opponent. A Human GM is a sportsman with what is reffered to as gamesmanship, i.e move fast now move slow now, sigh unexpectedly, sack when you think your opponent does not like sacks. We change to suit our opponents. Comps are not GMs because they are not sportsman and never will be. That is not determinitive of whether they CAN play "GM strength chess".
This page took 0.01 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.