Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 16:02:21 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>Hmm Wow it's amazing! Anand, Kasparov, Yermolinsky, Henley, all of who think >>fritz is very strong. And you Bob Hyatt are claiming fritz isn't even hardly a >>master. > > >If you'd read rather than write so much, you'd see I did not claim that >"fritz isn't even hardly a master." Indeed if you read, or just question your self, you know that was exactly your insinuation. But I do claim that a few masters and lots >of IM's I know roll it up into a ball when they play it. Well first of all i seriously doubt that most of the games you speak of are 40 in 2, and you didn't mention an I.M you mentioned someone who i'm at least hoping you are claiming is a master. Further, as i have said through numerous post in this thread, no one is questioning how strong fritz is against anti-computer chess. The question is only how strong against typical chess play. It is most definitely >strong. It most definitely is not a GM. That is most definitely your oppinion which is fine. It is most definitely not even a top >IM. Read last line. And I throw all the other micro programs into that same basket at present. Well that speaks for your understanding of scientific investigation and analysis. > >A GM saying "Fritz is very strong" is *not* the same as saying "Fritz is a GM". >When masters and weak IM's can't beat it with anti-computer strategies, it might >become a GM. But not until. And that certainly hasn't occurred yet, based on >watching it on the chess servers and in public matches... > >> I don't mean to insult you Hyatt but quite frequently you flood threads >>for the sole purpose of arguing. Beyond that you purposely make attempts to >>inflame when you realize you can't win with such statements as "All you are >>showing is that I have a lot better idea what a GM chess player is about than >>you do." You need to learn that this isn't personal, and stop trying to make it >>so. Further note that anyone who cares to look Mr. Hyatt has responded to an >>overwhelmingly large number of these post,i'm amazed that he has a job and time >>to write so much". You have an unquenchable thirst to have the last word on any >>post given in the groups, if it weren't for crafty you would have long lost any >>respectability, if you haven't already. I think you can do good things for >>computer chess, but stick to the data, and technique, if you aren't sure about >>something look it up there's no shame in that. No offense but please stop with >>your endless petty bickering it's really childish. >>> > > >Sorry you think I waste my time, as I agree at times. But I have been "off" >this week from the office, and have dropped in here more frequently as a result. > >As far as "if you aren't sure, look it up" that's good advice that you should >follow. Drop in to ICC, find one of the fritz computers, and look at its >history there. That will be quite revealing. You'll find that most fritz >operators would rather play other computers because they do very well against >computers. But fritz relies on tactics and trying to open the position up, >and simply gets killed in endgames and in closed positions. > > >>>*no* GM gets beat by a 2200 player, ever. Unless it is a simul, or the rare >>>blitz game. >>>
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.