Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:41:25 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 12:42:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 08:21:54, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>Here in Finland we have 3 GMs. Here's from their ratings from fide: >> >>500011 Yrjola, Jouni g 2419 2 24.10.1959 >>500020 Westerinen, Heikki M.J. g 2412 10 27.4.1944 >>500038 Rantanen, Yrjo A. g 2327 0 23.4.1950 >> >>You can give computer a knight handicap to get interesting match... >> >>Jouni Quoted from Bob's post: "So picking a bunch of GMs with ratings of 2400 and then saying "hey, computers are this good, so..." doesn't make much sense. Because at _some_ point in time, those 2400 GM players were 2600+ GM players, otherwise they would not have gotten the title..." You are Dead Wrong again Bob, we will take the 3 Grandmasters from the previous post for example. Not one of these Grandmasters was ever close to 2600 elo and in fact only one of these grandmasters was able to best 2500+ elo. As usual in this argument your theory falls apart in the light of FACTS. Yrjola, Jouni GM best elo 2515, 1984 Westerinen, Heikki M.J. GM best elo 2485, 1976 Rantanen, Yrjo A. GM best elo 2460, 1979 > > >First, these titles are awarded when a specific set of criteria have been >met. IE in the US, if you are a member of the USCF and play chess, your >rating can fluctuate from class-c (1400-1600) to class-a (1800-2000) and >your "title" changes as well. But once your rating hits 2200, you receive >a "life master" title that never gets revoked. > >GM players are exactly the same. IE when I finished my PhD, I was awarded the >title of "Dr.". I will keep that title for life, even if I reach a point where >I can't remember 2+2. GMs are the same. They satisfied the strict criteria >at some point. Then they get older and their chess skills decline. But the >title is not dependent on their maintaining a 2500+ rating forever. It is >very possible that there could exist a GM that could not win a class-B event >at a USCF tournament. Age does strange things to the mind. > >So picking a bunch of GMs with ratings of 2400 and then saying "hey, computers >are this good, so..." doesn't make much sense. Because at _some_ point in time, >those 2400 GM players were 2600+ GM players, otherwise they would not have >gotten the title...
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.