Author: Mike S.
Date: 14:28:19 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2001 at 17:08:37, Martin Schubert wrote: >>Kramnik *has won* a match against *Kasparov*. >Right, he has won one match. After loosing one match against Shirov, so that >Shirov should have played. >By the way: is it a world championchip just because to of the best players of >the world played one match? If that's true and I find enough money I can play a >match between Kasparow and Anand, Kasparov and Shirov, Shirov and Anand,... and >can call this world championchip? I think we have one organisation which playes >a championchip, so Anand is the world champion. Kramnik *has won* a match against *Kasparov*. >>Deep Shredder *has not won* (nor played) a match against *Deep Blue*. >Why Shredder-Deep Blue? Because Deep Blue is the level to compare at, for Man vs. Machine events of this kind and dimension IMO. Regards, M.Scheidl >>I think BGN is of course aware of that they need to meet decisions, which can be >>seriously argued in front of a worldwide audience. 9 rounds swiss is a weak >>argument, when various strong programs, different test, match and tournament >>results are around to be taken into consideration, and: none of the current >>leading programs has proven yet to be in the same league as Deep Blue was. >>Therefore, a qualifying was BGN's logical conclusion IMO. >> >>The event planned by Brain Games has a totally different dimension in terms of >>hardware, publicity, influence on public opinion about chess and computer chess >>etc. than an ICCA Championship. So if some think an ICCA title is the one and >>only argument which counts, they just don't realise this dimension (and even the >>ICCA realises it somehow as it seems).
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.