Author: Chessfun
Date: 16:57:47 11/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 14:16:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 28, 2000 at 20:47:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>I take some issue with the mention of negative stuff when there is non-negative >>stuff that can be discussed without detracting from the conversation. >> >>For example, someone posts a game, and we can talk about the game or we can >>spend three days talking about whether the opponent used a computer. > > >You have to learn to read "in context". In what I wrote, the emphasis was >on "just because a strong program lost to a weak human, don't assume that >the weak human is really a human." If someone posts 100 games here where a >1700 player beat strong computers on ICC, I would lazily say "they are all >cheaters." And I would probably be right in 99% of the cases. Because that >just doesn't happen very often. But in the thread you mention, cheating >wasn't the issue. "Don't take this result too seriously because ... " _was_ >the issue to me... By making the above statement _Lazily_ you would be branding an innocent as a cheater. IMO the 99 should go free rather than risk that. Sarah.
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.