Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:30:08 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 19:25:08, william penn wrote: >On June 05, 2001 at 18:55:02, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 05, 2001 at 18:06:21, Uri Blass wrote: >>>On June 05, 2001 at 17:36:48, John Dahlem wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>Do you realize Hyatt has spent a large portion of his life in computer chess, >>>>and is probably a good authority on these matters (better, even, than you)? I >>>>believe he said around 2400 elo anyway, that is very strong, and not far at all >>>>from GM. I think a 2400 elo player has good chances against GMs, especially if >>>>they do not do anything to neutralize his great tactical ability. One problem >>>>with computers is that just about any GM can beat them if they take the time to >>>>study anti-computer techniques. >>> >>>I do not believe in it. >>> >>>Rebel beated a GM in a 6 game match so not >>>every GM can beat them by anti-computer techniques. >> >>In that match, did the GM use anticomputer techniques or simply play whatever >>style was natural? I have found that some GM's are unbelievably, profoundly >>ignorant of anti-computer techniques (and others are very saavy to them). > > > Dan this is Rediculous and you know it, I thought you were a smart man???? Shows how little you know. > how do you think Van der Wiel was undefeated against all computers until his >match with Rebel???? So you think he used the anti computer strategy against all >the other computers, but suddenly when he got to rebel he left his brain >behind???? Happens all the time. Never had a bad day? >come on pal, your suppose to be a man of science this is rediculous. >IT Actually, my specialty is grammar, capitalization, and punctuation. That and the dreaded disease of certified public accountancy.
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.