Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 03:55:13 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 06:38:34, Uri Blass wrote: >I believe that one of the reasons that the 1300 player won the game was the >fact that he was really better than 1300. > >I guess that his performance against humans can give better >picture of his real rating. > >I cannot trust rating at that level. This was the rating on the FICS server at the time the game was played. He had not played serious chess for about 6 years (IIRC) and his last national rating was in the 1500's, so the 1300 estimate looks quite reasonable. One _does_ get rusty after 6 years. He did start to play seriously again some months after that game, and after several months of serious practise he got his rating to back about 1650. So even if his real rating when the game was played was 1650 (an overly optimistic estimate IMHO) this does not change the fact that he was able to beat the computer because he knew how to do it, whereas the much stronger players lost because they did not know it. -- GCP
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.