Author: José Carlos
Date: 05:27:14 03/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2002 at 01:02:40, Slater Wold wrote: >On March 20, 2002 at 00:56:15, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On March 19, 2002 at 19:56:39, enrico carrisco wrote: >> >>>During GM Gulko's post-game analysis of his match with HIARCS 8, a watcher asked >>>Gulko to rate the strength of HIARCS 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being >>>Kasparov strength. Gulko gave the rating of 6. >> >>Pretty meaningless because we only have one end of the scale. Sure, 10 is >>Kasparov, but what is 1?? Is it the patzer at the local chess club? Is it a >>random move generator? Is it 2000, 2500, Karpov, Crafty, ... you take your >>pick. > >Well, when you scale something, 1 is always the worst, and 10 is always the >best. I disagree. You can scale to anything you want to. Actually, in the present case, the top end of the scale is Kasparov, which isn't the "best" possible chess playing at all. Peter is right. Without the low end of the scale, everything else is meaningless. José C.
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.