Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:52:04 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 05:48:59, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>Wow, I nearly fell of my chair yesterday!
>He talked about Kramink's world title, and mentioned several
>times that Kramink should prove the legitimacy of his title,
>and that he is really the best player, either by playing
>(and winning!) tournaments or by playing Kasparov again.
<snip>
>Based on this, he stated that computer should not be considered
>superior to humans until the humans cannot win a _single_ game
>out of a match of 6, 8 or even 12 games.
I wonder if he thinks that the definition of 'superiority' shifts when applied
to hummans as opposed to computers. Otherwise he'll have trouble explaining why
Kramnik, who did not lose a single game over 16(!) games to him, is somehow
_not_ superior, and needs to prove it.
It's a baloney statement, since I know of no WC who won ALL the tournaments they
partook in. In the 50s and 60s, despite the fact that Botvinnik was the WC, he
did not win every event. The same goes for other past World Champion
titleholders. Not even legendarily consistent players such as Capablanca (WC:
1921-1927) succeeded in this. Capablanca for example, was only second in NY
1924, and 3rd in Moscow 1925, and the list goes on. The only player who is in a
position that requires constant and consistent results is Kasparov himself, in
order to back his claim to the no. 1 spot despite the loss of the WC title.
Still, I'll give him this: his tournament win percentage (Karpov probably still
wins in sheer numbers) is probably the highest in history.
Albert
>
>--
>GCP
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.