Author: Howard Exner
Date: 11:05:38 07/21/98
Many posts on how to rank computer strength(or Anand's) contain some faulty reasoning. Dr. Tuerke's humour in exposing the flaw in Sean's Anand post was to me self evident. Yet others often employ similar reasoning when assessing computer strength. One goes like this: computers can't be all that strong because they get beat by IM X, Y and Z. Therefore X, Y and Z are stronger players than the computer. Now if X, Y and Z are also beating "other players" with more regularity than the computers are beating these same "other players", then yes X,Y and Z are stronger. And this will show up in their ratings over the large data pool of competitors. Is that the case? Otherwise, stealing a page from Dr. Tuerke, I will pronounce "Fischer was not all that great a player since he got clobbered lifetime by Geller".
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.