Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 01:15:23 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 12:05:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 09:31:01, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On June 26, 2001 at 09:05:15, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2001 at 08:53:13, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>Wow, this is some "2100" player. I wish I could do this. I do not see why the >>>>players do not just play the trojan horse, stonewall, KIA, KID, french, dutch, >>>>2.Na3, or better yet, just set up some closed lost position that any "2100" >>>>player could handle and trounce the program. Since the programs are only "2100" >>>>positionally/strategically and not "2400", it should be a piece of cake on a >>>>866Mhz PIII. This must all be a "hoax", these players must be "paid" by the >>>>evil chess empire "Chessbase". This can't be real, close your eyes, cover your >>>>ears, and for crying out loud, the "Emperior" has wonderful clothes on. >>>> >>>>Quick e-mail everyone the memo: Programs are only "2100" >>>>positionaly/strategically/in closed positions. The word has not gotten out yet. >>>>Why hasn't CNN put the word out, it must be a "Chessbase" plot driven by greedy >>>>corporations. >>> >>>Where are you coming up with this 2100? >>>Is it from a post of Bob's where he wrote in certain positions they >>>are 2100?. Please point me to whatever the post was. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >>Yes it is and a couple of others. I did not save the post, I should have, but I >>do not keep a file of posts on people, well one or two posts from time to time. >>:) >> >>I will get off the "2100" bandwagon, I have made my point, unless it is brought >>up again and then I will defend my point of view, but I will keep the offending >>post as proof. Usually I am satisfied if the person just retracts the >>statement, I have to do this myself from time to time. :) >> >>I may look it up in the archives or maybe not. But the "2100" statement was >>made and then defended as the only possible result in "this type of position". >> >>Mark Young and Uri were also posting on that thread and to that message. They >>may have it or can link quickly to it. >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson > > >You can pick any number you want. I will look for a position and move that >even a 1600 player wouldn't play. They happen in comp games all the time, if >you look at enough games. > >2100 isn't magic. In my case, I just used 2100 to mean "bad" and 2600 >to mean "good". "Bad" mistake. If you say "2100" then everyone will remember you that you said "2100". Not "2150", not "1600". Everyone asks you why "2100". Nobody thinks about that you could have meant something different than just the number. What a pity.
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.