Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 08:32:15 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
Yes, I agree with what you said. But it's also important to remember that every GM has holes in their game (positions they play better, positions they play worse), and that in most GM games, you find one or two moves that are not the best for the position. The GM results get better when the holes are patched and consistency is improved. It's the same way with any computer program. Roger On July 17, 2000 at 11:03:28, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On July 16, 2000 at 19:41:59, Jerry Adams wrote: > >Sorry, but I disagree. A super GM would never lose a game like DJ did against >Piket or Kramnik. GM-results? Yes. GM-understanding? No. Especially in blocked >positions an 1800 player wouldn't have to fear a chess program at the moment. > >Besides, your kind of language is not very appropriate. I would suggest you use >normal words. > >And in a sense your words remind me of the situation after Deep Blue vs. >Kasparov. Less stronger players said after that match 'well, chess is no game >anymore. Because the world champ lost to a computer. This game is over'. Just >take a look at the games DJ-Piket or Van Wely-Fritz from the Dutch championship. >Then say again that computers are super GM's. > >So Jerry: Take the moves of DJ vs. Piket and explain me why this is a super GM. >Can you convince me? I don't think so. > >Jeroen > >>All the Intellectual masterbation in the world from the psuedo-intellectuals >>won't change that reality! Haahahahaa Who has the last laugh now!!
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.