Author: martin fierz
Date: 21:14:34 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 21:18:52, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. i beg your pardon?? ingo calls deep thought 2 deep blue because IBM insisted on renaming it. when it is completely clear that it is the same machine which was called deep thought 2, and far from anything deep blue / DB2 were later... i totally agree with you that ingo's take on this is absurd. but: >You identify label and real content. Larsen or >Taimanov never were "world champion calibre". this is just a question of definition. how elitist do you want to be in your definition? you seem to be thinking: "world champion calibre" <=> is or was world champion once i think: "world champion calibre" <=> is "relatively close" to the world championship. larsen made it to the candidate's semifinal. taimanov to the quarterfinals. both were top ten players in 1971, larsen even world number 3 for the whole of 1970... http://www.chessmetrics.com/PL/PL39950.htm http://www.chessmetrics.com/PL/PL22334.htm for me, that is definitely good enough to be called "world champion calibre". if you want a more strict definition of the term, fine. but you cannot force me to adopt your definition :-) 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.