Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 21:19:40 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. 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 Is this Ingo Althöfer a deamon out of Hell? Or what? Bob D.
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.