Author: Derrick Wilson
Date: 19:57:21 08/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2000 at 22:25:43, Imran Hendley wrote: >On August 04, 2000 at 22:01:43, Derrick Wilson wrote: > >>On August 04, 2000 at 21:21:42, Laurence Chen wrote: >> >>><snip> >>>> I don't believe this list for a second!! Consider this, on a pent 200 the list >>>>states that hiarcs6 is only 2417, yet the same program on that hardware defeated >>>>2495 dean hergott in a six game match!! >>>Yes, Dean Hergott at the time did not have a copy of Hiarcs to play and practice >>>with. Also computers chess at the time was not taken as seriously as it now. >>>The other explanation is that Dean Hergott was not aware of any anti-computer >>>strategy, or, he played he's usual style because he did not believe that the >>>computer was a serious threat. Result he lost to Hiarcs 6 on a Pentium 200. If >>>you look at the games, the games were not closed, locked up positions, no >>>anti-computer strategy was used. >>>Laurence >> >> >>Yawn....excuses, excuses, excuses... if my grandma had wings she could fly. If i >>could play better chess I could beat Garry kasparov. > >There's no law that says someone can't defeat an opponent rated 78 points higher >in a 6 game match. Six games isn't a lot, and the margin isn't all that big. It >happens. I don't think this one match is reason enough to say the SSDF should >not have lowered their ratings. You gotta see the big picture. Which is? The question is not whatever or not they should have lowered their rating, obviously they should, but by how much?
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.