Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:23:32 07/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2001 at 01:17:34, Tanya Deborah wrote: >On July 03, 2001 at 08:51:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 03, 2001 at 03:29:44, Tanya Deborah wrote: >> >>>On July 03, 2001 at 03:01:54, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On July 03, 2001 at 02:54:14, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi Mark, >>>>>I have only a comment about it : >>>>>Amazing! >>>>> >>>>>Regards. >>>> >>>>No not for some of us here? Chris, others, and me...the silent is deafening. >>> >>> >>>Incredible result for Chess Tiger beating 2 GM´s in a row!! >>> >>>Come on guys! The performance of Chess Tiger in this tournament is not a IM >>>strenght, is clearly a GM performance!!! >>> >>>Congratulations for Chris! >>> >>> >>>Best Regards >>>Tanya.D >> >> >>Sure it is. And it will continue to be so until the humans stop with the >>dumb (against computer) openings. I've said that many times before. If the >>humans play "normal chess" against the computer, they are going to have _great_ >>difficulty. If they play the opponent rather than playing the board, things >>won't look so great. But until they start... > > >Hi Bob! > >Then if the Humans play ¨dumb¨ openings against Computers, Do the computers play >at GM level ???? > > > >Anyway, I find this games very attractive, and this is the way that i like and i >want to see a GM play against a computer program... This anticomputer openings >are so booriing!! :-) I do not think that anti-computer openings have to be boring. sacrificing material for king attack is one of the anti-computer tactics and I do not think that it is boring. Uri
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.