Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:41:32 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 11:31:15, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>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. Thank you Dan for the accurate summary. > >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.