Author: Mike S.
Date: 04:22:01 06/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2001 at 19:59:08, Chessfun wrote: >Must agree. The article was pretty lame. It read to me like someone >wrote it, who had never played a computer before, was very weak themselves, >and simply wanted to make a nice little story. That's it - you got the point. I think this was, what the author aimed for with good reason. What should we expect from a computerchess article on the front page of a major international newspaper? We cannot apply quality criteria, as if this was an AI expert's, or computerchess enthusiasts magazine. A nice little story in this place (!), I think this is a big achievement compared to the usual media situation of computerchess. But when I look at some of the comments here, I'm afraid there are people who would prefer to have no news at all about our topic in the general media. Sarah get's the point, but some others only have complaints. He can't write a detail filled, in-depth computerchess article for page 1 of IHT. Which kind of article would you read about topics you have not been confronted with, or be not particularly interested with? Nice little stories! There is a life outside of computerchess, and thank god some people think about how to reach people there, some of which may stay with the topic and get more interested. The message was, that the average chessplayer (or even above average, I don't know) might loose a game against today's chess programs, even if he has *one knight more, and the help of 3 Grandmasters during the game*. So the knowledge of 99,9% of the IHT readers about the strength standard in current computerchess has been updated. The general receiption of this in CCC is quite disappointing IMO. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.