Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:21:31 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 14:34:45, Robert Hyatt 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. > >Mark, everything falls apart in the presence of your ignorance. > >to wit: Really well lets take a hard look. :) > >For a GM to earn the title "International Grandmaster" he _must_ (and there are >no exceptions) produce a 2600+ rating over 24 games. Correct, but this is not the same as achieving a 2500+ elo, the 2600 is only a TPR. LIKE WHEN DEEP JUNIOR PRODUCED A 2703 TPR ELO at Dortmund. > >Get it? I Get it, but you don't > >So he _did_ at some point in time, produce a 2600+ rating for himself. NO... he did not he achieved 2600+ rating for himself, TPR's are not the same thing as the elo rating.....get it. It might >have been 20 years ago... but he _did_ do it. No, not correct as shown in the other post. There is _no_ way to earn the >title GM without (a) having had a rating over 2500 at some point, and (b) >producing a performance rating of 2600+ over 24 games. Today that is correct, but 2600 TPR is much easier to achieve then holding a 2500+ elo for a longer time, as the computers have shown. > >Please read what is going on and stop trying to find flaws in the discussion >_until_ you understand and follow the discussion... I understand to well, you are making claims that the facts do not support. Lets take a look at some younger grandmaster's and see if your theory still holds water. Remembering that TPR's as any chess player knows is not the same as the true elo rating. TPR's is a much easier standard and not the same as being at true 2500+ player. To be as fair as possible to Bob's position I took the strongest younger Grandmasters for the under 2500 elo grandmaster list. Bob's position still does not hold water. Bob's Position: "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..." 560 Kaminski, Marcin g POL 2499 10.03.77 M Best elo 2540 at age 19 565 Tolnai, Tibor g HUN 2499 23.09.64 M Best elo 2560 age 33 572 Stripunsky, Alexander g USA 2497 18.08.70 M Best elo 2520 age 27 You can bluster all you like Bob, but the facts remain, and they do not support your position. Computers that hold 2500+ elo's should be considered as playing GM strength, because the are producing results better the alot of Grandmasters. Your overall argument seems to be Computer's must play and produce result like the ELITE grandmasters, to even be considered playing like normal Grandmaster. This is just plain ignorance on your part, not knowing what it takes to become just a Grandmaster. > > > > >> >> >>Yrjola, Jouni GM >>best elo 2515, 1984 >> >>Westerinen, Heikki M.J. GM >>best elo 2485, 1976 >> >>Rantanen, Yrjo A. GM >>best elo 2460, 1979 >> >> >> > > >Those are all ratings to support a position you take that is invalid. > >The last two are flawed. They do not meet the FIDE requirements for a >GM title. Perhaps honorary or whatever. But not by the rules... > >Which were quoted in this thread by somebody else, by the way... > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>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.