"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
While computers are not yet so superb at all aspects of the game as to
be
sufficient to accurately judge positional play/longrange strategy, they
are
sufficiently good to passably rate the play of patzers, which constitute
the
vast majority of chessplayers.
As one famous player put it: chess is 99% tactics.


Disagree. Computers are no where good enough to rate positional
play/longrange strategy for patzers.


As for the attempt to compare ratings of players from different pools,
the
whole point would be to eliminate such isolated pools, by effectively
tossing
everyone into the same pool: the pool of all chessgames ever played.
All such games would be evaluated by a chess program (or programs)
objectively.
The computer would not know or care who played the White pieces, or the
Black.
Its evaluation would come out precisely the same for a game between you
and I,
as for a game between Lasker and Capablanca, provided we followed the same
moves:


/* 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 (draw agreed)//


*zero significant errors detected*
*premature draw penalty applied*

ratings dump:

1.Terrybean = 2600
2.Nomorechess = 2625
3.Lasker = 2600
4.Capablanca = 2625


It is very nice of you to put me in such illustrious company )

Regards