Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:06:32 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 13:43:27, Charles Unruh wrote: >On December 05, 1999 at 01:48:32, Chessfun wrote: > >>On December 05, 1999 at 00:56:17, Charles Unruh wrote: >> >>>On December 04, 1999 at 17:32:47, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On December 04, 1999 at 16:50:46, Charles Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>> Not even the strongest program and here it is performing great feats drawing >>>>>2593 GM! Beats GM Sherbakov, Draws ANAND, Beats Lithuanian Nat'l Team, >>>>>Called "Definitely GM strength by I.M KAufman(Xpert on chess play), and yet >>>>>Rebel and comps can't get the slightest respect being called barely USCF MAster >>>>> strength when they are obviously GMs >>>> >>>>How do you know Rebel is not the strongest program when it comes to playing >>>>humans or playing computers for that matter. >>>>Who called them BARELY USCF master strength, I must have missed that post. >>>>Thanks. >>> >>> >>>You are right i can't say definitively that' it's not the strongest prog, but >>>since i have been in these news groups, and a computer chess afficionado, i feel >>>fairly confident in stating that The vast Majority of CCC Members do not feel >>>that the current rebel is the strongest prog, though at times in the past it may >>>have been. >>> As for the barely USCF master, i'm not going to name names. However if you >>>remember back only a weak ago it was the trigger for the "Stop the lunacy" >>>thread. >> >> >>The "Stop the lunacy" thread was one you started.... > >Indeed it was, and? If you went back in that thread several of those people >who made the outrageos >claim were writing in that thread trying to suppoert just >that point. There is a post here today. Where someone directly stated that >comps are great at tactics but only 1600 in positional strength! > That post is one I questioned however since positional strength is only one facet of a total rating that opinion isn't the same as saying BARELY USCF master strength. >BTW is lunacy a real word, >>anyway you were not specific in that post....i quote. > >Lunacy? Do you have a dictionary or know plain common everyday english? Was just a pun, however since I notice in your tone above and in other threads you like to insult, when I was just simply questioning why you used the words BARELY USCF master strength this will be the last time I reply to any thread you begin. In closing maybe you should check your dictionary.....outrageos nay....Outrageous !!. Thanks. >> >>Post #80157 >>"In the last 3 days i have seen at leaset 6 posts trying to make out that the >>progs were barely USCF master strength! There is no mere master in the united >>states that could dream of beating sherbakov with money on the line, or beat the >>lithuanian national team, or beat Gelfand in a 40/2 it does not happen! Yeah >>people are entitled to their opinions but i think there are limits come on." >> >>I tried in vain to find the other (least 6) posts where people referred to >>programs as BARELY USCF master strength but could not. >>Thanks.
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.