Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 17:49:08 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 02:22:29, David Dory wrote:
>Sorry Vincent, et. al., your arguments are persuasive - but not enough.
>
>Everyone agrees that DB2 hardware is still untouchable, today. And the hardware
>was at least half of DB.
>
>Until and unless a program can (as did DB2), knock off the human chess champ,
>you're just spitting into the wind, guy.
>
>I'm very fresh out of time machines for comparisons of Lasker, McEnroe, Fischer,
>etc.. In my opinion, you could have saved all those key strokes. Interesting
>ideas? Sure, so is science fiction.
>
>Serving as a conduit to logical fact?
>
>Not hardly!
>
>NO computer program can claim to be better than DB2 (which remember is both
>hardware and software), until and unless it beats someone of Kasparov's caliber.
>
>No time machine, wooden rackets, analysis of Deep Thought games, etc., required.
>
>Either they whoop the human chess champion, or they should shut up about being
>better than DB2. Put up or shut up.
>
>Simple as that.
>
>David
-------------------
All this debating is only guess work, as the Deep Blue/kasparov match really
didn't prove who was the strongest opponent. It only proved that Deep Blue was
the better player in that match alone, and not the strongest player overall,
because there needs to be a few hundred games to "possibly" prove who is the
strongest player.
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.