Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 06:17:18 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:06:42, Andrew Williams wrote: >Over the last month, there have been a number of such huge arguments. >I've always thought that it's a bit strange to get hung up on this >question. Five years ago, it was clear that the best micro programs >were not at GM strength. And presumably if you wait five years, PC >programs will have proven beyond any doubt that they are at GM strength. >Surely the time we happen to be living in is the best and most enjoyable, >because we're perhaps seeing a moment of transition between these positions. >Why then the need to convince anybody of anything when you can just sit >there and be proved right by waiting? Is there some particular benefit to >being able to say that PC programs are GMs *now*? > >Andrew I don't think that the argument is beneficial, but there are some people there are certain that prog's are gm strength, i myself is one of them and when people say that prog's are only 2100 rated it provokes, especially when you look at DJ 2703 perf against the top human gm's, it would be the same as to say that a 2100 player could acheive the same, in the same company. Regards Jonas
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.