Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 07:22:23 12/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 14:06:32, Chessfun wrote: >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 Did you look up how to spell outrageous? I think you ought to cough up a few bucks to get a dictionary or aspellchecker or something. >nay....Outrageous !!. >Thanks. You are welcome i like giving lessons. >>> >>>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.