Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:42:56 06/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 1999 at 03:31:41, Harald Faber wrote: >On June 23, 1999 at 18:20:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>>>A reason why you don't count Hiarcs-Hergott? >>>> >>>>yes... games were not 40/2, games were held in a mall. Hergott is a weaker >>>>IM. It was so noisy he had to wear headphones.. >>>>etc... >>> >>>1) IM is IM; who gives the right and is able to judge WEAK or STRONG? Even a >>>WEAK IM is still an IM. >>>2) Hiarcs WON. Although it was only 6 games. But 6 games plus 6 games >>>plus...plus... someday make a bunch. >>>3) I guess it was Fischer who said: "the only ones with no excuses when they >>>lose against me are computers." >> >> >>Doesn't matter. You don't earn a GM norm playing an IM in a match. So trying >>to answer the question "are computers at GM level?" is not going to be answered >>by playing an IM in a noisy mall at non-40/2 time controls... > >You try to miss the point, don't you? ;-) >If you win an IM clearly, then you are certainly ABOVE. Right? And what is above >IM? Is there something between IM and GM? I don't know of anything. >I was not talking of EARNING a NORM. >I was talking of GM LEVEL. No you don't. If you beat an IM, you are probably an IM. But you aren't a GM until you can play with GMs... And using the Hergott match doesn't mean much. What GM would play chess where he has to wear headphones to drown out the noise? And the games were _not_ 40/2hr, which is the time control we are discussing? > >>And hiarcs did >>win... but aren't we discussing 40/2hr time controls here? The hiarcs/Hergott >>match was not 40/2. So it all seems totally unrelated to the question being >>asked... > >What was the time control then? AFAIR it was 40/120 or VERY VERY CLOSE. I think it was something like 40/60, then game/30.
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.