Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:01:56 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 07:02:38, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 00:14:34, martin fierz wrote: > >>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 > >Perhaps this helps. Larsen is a good and easy example. But don't shoot me I'm >just the reporter! i must admit that i do not know too much about these "old" players myself, being "only" 31. i will agree with you though that larsen probably never could have made it to world champion. but i will still call him world champion calibre because he made it to the top 3. anyway, the question of russell was more about the likelihood of a x-0 score in a match ever happening. and if it can happen to the world number 3, then it can happen to the number 1 to IMO. obviously fischer was much better (as is clearly witnessed by his 6-0 wipeout), but nobody would ever have epxected this kind of result beforehand, just as russell does not expect it ever to happen. but it has happened, and it can happen again :-) >There must be somewhere a standard or base from where it's judged what >is really going on beyond all cheats and impostering. Therefore I want >to thank you for your confirmation about Althöfer where you took great >risks in saying the truth. i have never been interested in titles or labels as you call them. if somebody says something wrong i don't have a problem pointing it out :-) besides, i honestly don't see where i take a risk in saying what i said. 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.