Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 22:19:09 03/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 1999 at 14:21:57, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 03, 1999 at 13:38:25, Charles Unruh wrote: > >[snip] >> >> >> Evidence enough of what? If a world championship match was anounced of only 6 >>games NO ONE would think it was sufficient to prove anything, that's why there >>has never in the history of all chess been a championship match that was so >>short. Again as i said by your reasoning one could claim that after 9 rounds of >>the kasp vs Anand match since anand was in the lead by a point that indeed that >>should have proved to you that Anand was the better player. So all you are >>demonstrating is an illogical bias, because not only was the match just a mere 6 >>games, you have no other games of deep blues to point to to show it's strength >>so you are basing an opinion of strength based solely upon 6 games total! You >>can't even finsih a PROVISIONAL rating with 6 games! > >That's exactly how I felt with the Karpov Anand championship. It's tied after 6 >games, so we will go to faster times where Karpov wins 2 to keep his title. >Anand had played 6 rounds to even get there in the first place and then he must >win with speed chess. Bogus. Yeah, like Karpov should be the FIDE champion. > >Deep Blue beating Kasparov didn't prove anything other than a computer could >beat a world champion at match play. It didn't prove the Deep Blue was better, >just better in that particular 6 game match. > >KarinsDad The most sensible statement in this whole thread i started.
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.