Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:19:17 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 14:18:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 14:10:11, Derrick Ford wrote: > >>Excellent result for Century, but I think Van wely demonstrated that he is the >>better player, game 1 should have been a Draw, Van wely demonstrated that he >>could win as white at Will. Rebel Definitely played like a 2600 player however. > >I think it is a clear triumph for Rebel. What I mean is that under stringent >conditions with a lot on the line, Rebel played nose to nose against a 2600 >player and it was a standoff. <Not to shortchange van Wely, a nearly 2700 player would be a better description> >Sure, van Wely lost due to time pressure. But that is simply an aspect of human >play where the humans are at a disadvantage. What about the big strategic >advantage humans have in making positional moves? Rebel can't cry about that, >because that's just the way it is. Humans and computers play chess differently, >with different strengths and weaknesses. > >I congratulate both parties. > >The Rebel team risked a lot, because they not only had to cough up a big chunk >of cash, but could also have easily lost 4-0 (with the exact same program) and >had people mistakenly conclude that Rebel was not ready for the big time against >great players. > >Loek van Wely risked a great deal as well. These contests have a very large >"John Henry/Paul Bunion" atmosphere about them and gather a very large amount of >scrutiny because of it. I suspect that a very large amount of ego is at stake >in a public match of this nature. It took a lot of guts for van Wely to accept >the match. > >To both teams, I say "Well done!"
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.