Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 02:32:16 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 02:26:59, Jerry Doby wrote: >On April 06, 2002 at 02:05:40, Tanya Deborah wrote: > >>On April 05, 2002 at 21:49:51, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On April 05, 2002 at 21:33:22, Jerry Doby wrote: >>> >>>>Mr. Berg is a legitamate 2500 elo player and fritz is winning the match, I have >>>>yet to see a bad computer result vs humans, yet some people stubbornly hold on >>>>to the nonsense that computers are not 2500 elo????? Barbaric ignorance I would >>>>say for sure!!! >>> >>> >>>I guess you're referring to Dr. Hyatt? I believe he said that computers and this >>>was some weeks back, may be at the 2500 level. >> >> >>I do not think that Jerry is reffering to Dr. Hyatt. He has the free opinion to >>talk about it (meanwhile do not insult anybody) and I also believe that some >>people here do not want to understand that computers played at GM Level. Best >>computers programs play definitely at 2600-2650 elo level. Why people can´t >>understant it?????? >> >>I don´t think that a 2450 player can get a second place, in the Dutch >>Tournament. (Fritz got it) >> >>I don´t think that a 2450 player can beat Van Wely two times, in a four game >>match. (Rebel 4 did it!) >> >>I don´t think that a 2450 player can get same great results that Junior got in >>the Dortmund Tournament some time ago. It got an elo of 2701!!!!(slow time!!) >> >>a 2450 player can´t beat Gulko in the same way that new programs dit it! >> >>AND I AM SURE THAT a 2450 player CAN´T TAKE THE FIRST PLACE, IN THE SAME WAY >>THAT THE AMAZING CHESS TIGER 14 DID IN ARGENTINA!. >> >>There are many results that prove that today computer programs are indeed >>superior to 2500 elo against humans. Why. Why is so difficult to understand to >>some persons here ?????????? >> >>Do you need that Fritz beats 8-0 to Kramnik to think that computers are clearly >>better that 2500 ????????????? :-) >> >>Best Regards! >> >>Tanya Deborah. > > > >Tanya > > don't let them fool you, they are not as dumb and blind as they pretend to be, >some people have very large ego's , and do not like to admitt that they are >wrong, even a fool could see computers are clearly 2500+, you don't have to >smart or be a programmer, all you need is common sense and eyes, unfortunately >there is a cult of personality associated with some members here, and they will >get people to believe the most rediculous nonsense, even when it goes against >elementary logic, feel sorry for these weak minded, easily led, fools, but don't >be decieved they can see the obvious. Well let's assume for a second that you are right (for the record i don't think that you are) then why would anyone have an interest in claiming computers are wekaer than they really are?? what could they gain from that?? do you have any proof that they have not looked "deeper" than you? where does all this animosety come from? you remind me of someone else on another board, with a different handle though... Regards Jonas
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.