Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 08:57:58 07/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2001 at 09:24:16, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. > In that sense lemons are "crunching" many oranges and apples too, nowadays.
This page took 0.01 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.