Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:30:08 01/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2001 at 22:26:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 12, 2001 at 22:16:44, Garry Evans wrote: > >>Hello Dan >> >> I have been following the thread between you, and Mr Drazonic with interest. I >>have a question for you. Is it possible For to Prove that a Human Grandmaster >>is Mathematically Grandmaster Strength? > >Sure, no different than a program. > >>If my understanding of your arguments >>are correct, we cannot with 100% certainty. Isn't it true then with this logic >>no one can be proven to be Grandmaster strength, including grandmasters!!! If >>this is true then this whole subject is ludicrous. > >Exactly my point. We can prove (with any reasonable degree of certainty >desired) what someone's ELO rating is. The way to get an accurate figure it to >play many games under controlled conditions. > >We won't ever reach 100% certainty (but that is true of anything). Let me also add that with increasing strength, it becomes easier and easier to prove. For instance, Kasparov will be incredibly easy to prove. Maybe a 50 game sample would be plenty because his ELO is so high. But someone who's ELO is exactly 2500 would take an incredible amount of games to prove, if the goal was 2500. The ELO should be at least 2550 if we are to have a reasonable chance to prove it accurately.
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.