Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:32:00 01/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2001 at 13:41:00, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >On January 12, 2001 at 00:41:33, Garry Evans wrote: > >> A short while ago, i asked you on ICC, would you acknowledge that computers are >>of Grandmaster Strength if Rebel Won the Match against Van der Wiel, your answer >>Was yes!! So would you please honour this agreement and acknowledge here in >>Public that computers are GM Strength? > >This makes me angry. When will you people understand that "computers are GM >strength" is a bogus statement repeated over and over again since it does not >include enough information. "Computers are at least GM strength in 1 0" is >certainly true. "Computers are GM strength in tourniament play" might be true, >"Computers are GM strength in analysis" will not be true for the next few years. For analysis, computers will sometimes have GM strength. For instance, with 7 chessmen on the board and 6 piece tablebase files, I think that they are clearly GM. If you have 14 chessmen on the board, that is another story. For closed positions, they are below IM (look at WAC 230). Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a program that can get WAC 230 at 40/2 time controls? If there is, I will have to revise my thinking on that one.
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.