Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 23:36:08 02/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2002 at 12:31:00, Mark Young wrote:
>On February 21, 2002 at 10:19:25, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>
>>Well, I was right and some experts here were wrong. I said: Rebel can win one or
>>perhaps two wins from now on after the so calld "terrible defeat". They even
>>said: no way, Rebel will not get a point from now on. He knows nothing. Just
>>tactics. Etc
>>Conclusion: olfative conditions are more worthy than expertisse, once and again.
>>Too many times experts are those guys that dig deeper and deeper his hole in
>>order to see less and less all around.
>>Fernando
>
>
>Yes it would help the so-called experts to be a little more objective.... It is
>clear that the computer record against Grandmaster players is no fluke. No
>matter what some experts here argue. Computer programs on micros are very strong
>GM level players. Yes computers are stupid in many ways, and only understand
>tactics...but the computers keep winning. Some so called experts keep ignoring
>that fact.
-------------------------
It's not hard for me to believe that programs can win usually always by
"tactics" alone. Didn't you guys ever hear that "tactics' are about 99% of a
chess game!!!
Regards,
Terry
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.