Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 06:24:16 07/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 21:57:55, Pete Galati wrote: >It all seems like a basically worthless struggle to me trying to say the >computers are GM strength. So if everyone says at some point in the future that >the computer programs are GM strength, then so what? We've all known that cars >are faster than horses for years now, but the average horse will still outlive >the average car, and a good horse will still get you over more difficult terrain >than ANY car or SUV or truck, and you're never going to race them against >eachother. So there's no real purpose in the comparison. A horse is a horse, a >car is a car. A computer is a computer, and a GM is a GM. And none of them are >eachother. That more or less nails the essence of the question. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges and we don't care too much about lemons...yet. >The thing that amazes me is that people waste so much time trying to do this. People are not very smart animals despite what you might think. The usual tribe segregation nonsense as always. Mogens.
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.