Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:59:43 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 15:11:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 14:31:53, Mark Young wrote: > >>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. > >The question is what is the meaning of grandmaster strength >If being better than a lot of grandmasters mean GM strength than IM's who can >hold elo of 2500+ should be considered also as GM strength. I will answer the above from what I know, Take IM Mike Brooks from Missouri USA, Many here consider IM Mike Brooks at the level of Grandmaster, because 1. He has shown he can play and best many Grandmasters. 2 He has been near or above 2500+. The problem IM Mike Brooks has is he lives in Missouri, and Lack of Money to travel to earn the norms. Brooks, Michael A Rating 2511 Title IM Best elo 2515 1999 at age 37 BTW It is easier to achieve TPR's because that is only over a short period of games. I have produced TRP's in tournaments over 2000 USCF rating, but that does not make me a 2000 uscf rated player or have a rating of over 2000 uscf rating. IM Brooks, as I live in Missouri the chess desert capitol of the world.:) > >I think that Bob do not mean to this by the words GM strength. > >I think that he means the strength that you need to become a GM. >You can have lower strength later without losing the GM title. > >Uri
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.