Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Look at these finnish GMs (specially Bob) :-)

Author: Mark Young

Date: 11:31:53 06/18/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 18, 2001 at 14:15:05, Côme wrote:

>On June 18, 2001 at 13:41:25, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Hello !!
>You forgot one important thing : They all had +2500 in intermediate elo !
>the elo you give is the best rating published.
>They all made Gm norms (TPR +2600) and had +2500 betwenn 2 fide list.
>best regards
>Alexandre Come

You are making my point, it is much easier to make TPR's then hold a elo of
2500+ for computers to be considered GM strength. If a computer can hold a 2500+
elo it is performing better then alot of grandmssters, and should be considered
Grandmaster strength.




>

>
>
>>
>>
>>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 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.