Author: odell hall
Date: 18:11:18 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 10:50:37, Chessfun wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 09:17:10, odell hall wrote: > >>On July 06, 2001 at 10:38:58, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On July 06, 2001 at 05:01:13, odell hall wrote: >>> >>>>On July 06, 2001 at 04:54:02, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 06, 2001 at 00:18:54, odell hall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If i am not mistaken didn't roman just lose a two game match to shredder at the >>>>>>time control of 30 5, what evidence can you produce which says if humans have >>>>>>more time they win??? All the 40/2 games we have seen in the last threee years, >>>>>>does not prove that point. IN fact we have seen that even on hardware that is >>>>>>barely decent tiger has performed on the level of 2700 elo. Can you show me one >>>>>>bad result of a computer at standard time controls??? If you cannot then all you >>>>>>have is conjecture vs our facts and hard data. Even century 1 performed at 2552 >>>>>>over a period of many games, show me the results where grandmasters have gotten >>>>>>the best of the computers, do you have even one result???? >>>>> >>>>>Bob already explained why timecontrols alone don't tell the complete story. The >>>>>other aspect is the incentives to try and harness computer programs. I, for one, >>>>>can't see what those would be. The only major carrot is money as far as I can >>>>>tell and since it's not the primary source of income the effort limited IMO. In >>>>>general the games against computer programs are few and far between. Why devote >>>>>a lot of time to that? >>>>> >>>>>The GM strength discussion is a little strange in the sense that some in the >>>>>computer community thinks of it as a competition, ie. beating GMs regularly >>>>>proving strength. Unfortunately, the competitor (your average run of the mill >>>>>GM) hasn't got a clue about the "contest", so he/she generally ignores them >>>>>altogether. And since one is standing virtually still and all the programs >>>>>moving forward, there comes a point of catching up. However, this fact will not >>>>>prove anything about strength IMO. It's like running against Maurice Greene when >>>>>he's tying his shoes with his back to the track. >>>>> >>>>>Mogens. >>>> >>>> >>>>you and bob are both full of shit, bacause Ed Shoeder did offer a money >>>>incentive during the grandmaster challenge, go to the rebel home page >>> >>>Off with his head. >> >> >>Sarah What is your major malfunction???? > > >Wow did you think of those words all on your own?. > >My problem is this. You wrote in reply to Mogens; >"you and bob are both full of shit," > >Therefore IMO your account should be deleted, hence the words >"Off with his head". > >Do you really feel the need to use such language, can't you simply >try to make a point without the expletive. You should try it, most >do, and are successful. > >Sarah. You think my account should be deleted just for a slight slip of the tonque?? You are very cruel Sarah and unforgiving. After all, I have been around here for three years don't i deserve a little break? Actually i don't think my language was the hardcore type of expletive you describes, it's almost fits in the category of a common expression.
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.