Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 11:15:35 02/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 1999 at 12:20:16, KarinsDad wrote: >On February 05, 1999 at 05:10:32, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >>On February 05, 1999 at 04:59:22, Reynolds Takata wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 1999 at 18:44:23, Jeff Anderson wrote: >>> >>>>Hey, why even have a match? According to you, if it wins, it's GM strength. If >>>>it loses, it's GM strength. >>> >>>Hey why have a bad attitude? I make this statement because there is no possible >>>way you could have made such a statement unless that's exactly what you have. >>>Why? Because i didn't say if it wins or loses that it's a GM. What i said is >>>that if it loses that alone does not make it not a GM, and here you are in what >>>i PERCEIVE(could be wrong) as a sarcastic statement "if it loses it's a GM" >>>something that i never said, but rather something you wanted to see me saying. >>>If it wins i said "well that speaks for itself". This here is open to some >>>interpretation. However, if it wins that doesn't make it GM strength for certain >>>either, though just as many people that would say that it isn't a GM based on >>>losing, will say it is a GM simply based upon it winning. Though all things >>>being equal and the GM opponent actually playing at his rating strength would >>>suggest a rating equivalent to the strength of at least a low GM for the comp, >>>if the comp was to win the match. >>> >>>In another post in this thread, i mentioned in the 70s Taimanov and Larsen lost >>>matches 6 0, this certainly does not mean they weren't GM strength, or that they >>>played less than GM strength. However, if they had actually beaten Fischer by >>>the margin of 6 0, then there are few(probably none!) that would have said that >>>their performance in that case was not indicative of GM strength! So, without >>>making any bold statement to paraphrase i said a win "would speak for itself". >> >> >>P.S. The reason winning does indeed suggest GM strength(not prove it), is >>because of the unlikelyhood of actually defeating a GM, in such a match and not >>be at least at the lowest level that could be considered GM strength(2500). > >I'm glad you put in the P.S. I understood your previous post until the last >sentence. Glad you cleared it up. > >KarinsDad > Again here, this post of yours is totally unnecessary and pointless. This response also is just taking up space so i hope you wont continue eliciting them. >>>> >>>> >>>>On February 04, 1999 at 18:30:00, Reynolds Takata wrote: >>>>>Say that Hiarcs is actually ELO 2550 strength, and he plays GM 2585 ELO. The >>>>>2585 defeats H7 in a 6 game match by 3.5 to 2.5. or even less. Well firstly i >>>>>would hope that no one would start claiming that the prog isn't GM strength >>>>>because it lost. If it's only 2550 it's supposed to lose. If H7 wins, well >>>>>that speaks for itself :). I believe also if the comp achieved merely the score >>>>>above it would have a relative provisional of 2518, and perhaps that would speak >>>>>a little something as well.
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.