Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 10:35:34 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 11:52:04, Albert Silver wrote: >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. of course. That's why he mentions computers stability or something. >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.