Author: Dan Andersson
Date: 08:31:15 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
> >Therefore, using a list of -2500 GM's in support of an argument that >2500 ELO is enough to be a GM is still flawed, because their title >is irrespective of their current strength. > This discussion is about what a GM is, and by that definition classify computers as GM strenght. And the evidence seems to point to the fact that they are there, or at least close. But then some people began using arguments based on subjective (and undefined) criteria as understanding and lack of understanding of certain points of the game. And after that they begun to say that some GM's are too old, too weak... Thus trying to change the definition of what a GM is. Regrds Dan Andersson
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.