Author: Rex
Date: 15:24:19 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 16:18:59, Russell Reagan wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 07:48:10, Rex wrote: > >>What this means is that Computers did_not loose_any_game. A first grader will >>tell you that would most likely mean computers had the upper hand ver. Gulko. >> >>Remember computers undefeated...Gulko WINLESS!! think about it. > >Exactly. That is my point. To a first grader it seems obvious. To the general >non-chess playing public it seems obvious that computers are better than any >human. My point is that I don't think it is so obvious when you analyze the >situation. There have been a limited number of events in which humans who have >little experience against computers have lost by small margins. It's not so >obvious, that's my point. > >Russell This whole excuse of little experience against computers is getting old. What about human V human player for the first time!!! Two people playing against each other has little_experience_ with each other!! NO GM should "prepair" against a match ver. a comp. by taking the program home aND playing 100 games against it. The ONLY material given to a GM, or any human for that matter, is past PGN GAMES to look at... OH MR KASPAROV I PLAY YOU NEXT WEEK IN A TOURNAMENT. WILL YOU COME TO MY HOUSE SO I CAN PLAY AGAINST YOU 100 TIMES TO THAT I CAN PREPAIR AGAINST YOU!!!! NOT
This page took 0.01 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.