Author: Chris Carson
Date: 04:01:40 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. Regardless though those who make the now >fairly BOLD claim that comps are not GM strength, will begin immediately now to >have their oppinions on the issue to be viewed as extremly shaky(whether their >oppinions should be looked upon in such a manner or not!). Especially >considering that J6 has probably been on the market almost a year(maybe >longer). If a comp plays one game in 10 at "GM strength" it means that it plays >"GM strength"( just not always)! > >Further All this talk of well GMs will start analysing all of a comps weaknesses >and then beat them makes them not GM strength is ridiculous. Say Anand spent >the next 3 years examining every game that Maurice Ashley has played in the last >3 years(plus his current games) Anand then manages to beat Ashley 13.5 out of 15 >games(fischer beat stiffer competition 6 -0!). Would that have any bearing on >whether Ashley was "GM strength?" I think not. > >The term "GM strength" what does it mean? It means different things to >different folks, though perhaps it means(AT THE LEAST) to play a game of chess >vs GM opposition equal or greater to drawing the GM opponent when the qaulity of >play of the GM opponent in the game would be considered by most GM players to be >considered on par with the play of the average GM. Though one can play and lose >and still have played GM strength chess, Because Anand lost to Kramnik does not >meant that he didn't play "GM stregth chess".
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.