Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:59:19 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. > >Regrds Dan Andersson I don't believe I said that. If it is me you are talking about. I simply said that "if, for some reason, you want to compute the 'average GM rating' then you should take _real_ GM ratings... not including the ratings for players that have earned the GM title, but are now obviously not GM-quality any longer due to age or medical condition." Although I also don't particularly see the importance of knowing what the "average" GM rating is, either. It is just another number...
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.