Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 15:32:10 11/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 22, 2003 at 13:45:02, Erik Bergren wrote: >>>****** >>>>You and like minded miscreants, constitute the banal ignorance which is posted >>>>on this board. >>>> >>>>Take it elesewhere, as this kind of libelous talk hasn't a home at CCC. >>>** >>> >>>Concern for the reliabilly of data is logical. Among the penalties >>>for not doing that is: wasted time studing unreal data. >> >>Logic dictates not to draw conclusions from dubious data. >>There is no indication, that the data I have is doubtful, but every indication >>the internalization of conspirators are! > > Qualifying a "chess game" as non "doubtful data" or non "dubious data", >is not specific enough for critical use. > > In the present case for example: Kasparov was able >to practice play over and over against the computer >(or a very similar version) >before playing the games that counted. >Kasparov learns from such games, but the computer did not. >That is a higher degree of "aquaintance with the opponent" than is usual. > >Surely the games have a quality to them do to that. >For example, they could contain assaults on weeknesses that >Kasparov found in that computer and software. > >Thus: >Such data(games) would(may) then >not be "rigorous enough" (or "less rigorous") for >forming general plans for winning at chess against other >opponents. (Unless you interpret it carefully, conscienciously). Hello? How did you extrapolate all of this from what I said above? We're not speaking about the same thing. My message I thought was clear? The message is, there was no staging of chess games. Somehow we have come to some misunderstanding.
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.