Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:18:52 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 17:33:05, martin fierz wrote: >On October 24, 2002 at 09:12:50, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On October 24, 2002 at 08:05:41, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>I mean which result would be DEFINITE/FINAL/LAST etc. indicator, that computer >>>is better than best human in chess. >>>10-0? 20-0? 40-0? And may be human mated in under 30 moves in each game? Should >>>be quite clear then for most, if not for all. >>> >>>Jouni >> >>Why do you ask? No human world champion calibre player has ever lost 10-0, or >>even come close to losing 10-0, much less 20-0 or 40-0, so what's the point of >>even asking? > >umm, you are young my friend :-) >too young to remember the candidate's matches which the one and only bobby >played and won 6-0, against players who were also "candidates", meaning world >champion calibre players. Just a short correction without entering the thread. You are making the same mistake, Ingo Althöfer made. You identify label and real content. Larsen or Taimanov never were "world champion calibre". And then it's a well known fact that if you want to win you could run into desaster. I'm sure they could have drawn a few games. But they wanted to Win. Petrosian was the only "calibre" of the three opponents of Fischer. Rolf Tueschen > >aloha > martin
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.