Author: Alvaro Polo
Date: 00:36:20 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2000 at 19:28:16, Jerry Adams 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. 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 > > > Your ideals and opinions are basically stupid, obviously no international >master could have such a Score as Deep Jr. did in such a Strong GM tournament !! Any IM could have such a score. The questions are: 1) How probable would it be? 2) How many more results such as those should be expected to clear the doubt about that IM being a GM? 3) Is the consistency of computer play the same as that of human play? This question is important. I believe that human play is more consistent than computer play, and therefore that an IM can become a GM showing less GM games that a computer. I mean, we should require more good games from a computer before declaring it to have consistent GM strength. Alvaro Polo >You people defy belief!!
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.