Author: Joe McCarron
Date: 20:58:44 07/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
Don, Don't get me wrong although my style of writing may seem confrontational I do not intend it. My view is when it comes to chess nobody ever had to prove anything. Moprphy didn't have to prove that he was better than Staunton Fisher didn't have to prove he was the best ... you name it. The world will keep spinning no matter if a grandmaster ever plays a computer or any chess player ever proves he or she is the best. That said, I guess I have always had a fondness for the way chess is a no BS type of sport (unlike e.g.,olympic figure skating) You want to find out who is the best you sit down at a board and play games. In other words there is a very objective way of finding out who is better. Reading all these posts on the board about who *might* be better a gm or the top computer programs just rubs me wrong. Grand masters have no obligations to play anyone at chess. Anymore than I am obligatied to play anyone in chess. But they won't have my respect as chessplayers or sportsmen if they claim they are better than someone (or something) but refuse to play it and show us their proofs. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and of course it is nothing personal with your post or your views it is just the way I feel about it. Of course they can expect payment for their work but when you have so many GM's and they all are *prohibitively* expensive then were not talking economics we are talking cowardice. Gms don't *have* to prove a thing to me or anyone else. I happen to believe that the strongest PC programs are stronger than most of them already.
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.