Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:39:19 01/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2002 at 17:31:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 25, 2002 at 17:25:56, Albert Silver wrote: >[snip] >>I don't think that's necessary, unless by playing nearly perfectly you just mean >>avoiding losing moves. The way you put it, it sounds as if there are very few >>non-losing moves (i.e. a narrow road to avoid losing against perfect play) >>whereas I believe there are many many roads to a draw that even perfect play >>from the other side would not easily avoid. > >Perhaps. Imagine this: > >How many times will a 5 year old, who correctly knows the rules of chess but >never sees beyond 2 plies do against Kasparov? I submit that they will never >win or draw, for all practical purposes. > >A perfect player verses Kasparov should be far more dominating than that. I disagree here. I believe that the difference kasparov and a 5 year old is bigger than the difference between the perfect player and kasparov. 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.