Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:36:09 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 15:32:32, Matthew Hull wrote: >On August 22, 2002 at 15:15:08, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 14:37:07, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2002 at 14:20:41, William H Rogers wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>>>... That they beat the worlds champ in 2 out of 3 is on >>>>record, but that does not make them the worlds best. >>>>Bill >>> >>>It does if no other program has done it or can do it. I guess we'll soon know >>>the answer if the Fritz/Kramnik thing ever happens. >> >>Kramnik gets the machine before the match. >>The interesting match is kasparov-Junior and not Kramnik-Fritz. >> >>I think that you should learn statistics and 6 games are too little data to >>decide and stopping to play after these 6 games suggest that they know that they >>were lucky and they want to give the public the worng impression by not playing >>more games. >> >>I do not fall for this trap. >> >>Uri >>Uri > > >Let's put it this way. They are the only one's to ever get that lucky. But for >some people, beating the World Champ in 6 games with a lot of skill and some >luck (maybe even a lot of luck) adds up to zero. I think it adds up to > zero. >Can you at least admit that? This could be my opinion in case that I know only about the results but I know also about the games and I analyzed positions from them with the top programs of today. I saw nothing that top programs need hours to find and no impressive move of deeper blue. Uri
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.