Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 18:56:18 01/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2003 at 21:44:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 26, 2003 at 20:02:05, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On January 26, 2003 at 19:59:43, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On January 26, 2003 at 19:31:48, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On January 26, 2003 at 19:28:39, Luis Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>>Full game >>>>> >>>>> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b6 9.e4 >>>>>e5 10.g5 Nh5 11.Be3 0-0 12.0-0-0 Qc7 13.d5 b5 14.dxc6 bxc4 15.Nb5 Qxc6 16.Nxd6 >>>>>Bb7 17.Qc3 Rae8 18.Nxe8 Rxe8 19.Rhe1 Qb5 20.Nd2 Rc8 21.Kb1 Nf8 22.Ka1 Ng6 23.Rc1 >>>>>Ba6 24.b3 cxb3 25.Qxb3 Ra8 26.Qxb5 Bxb5 27.Rc7 Line >>>> >>>>Yes, let me again repeat the repeated: "humans are still *far* stronger than >>>>computers". >>> >>>You can say it as many times as you want but that doesn't make it true. >> >>Kasparov's performance does. >> >> > >The statement, on its face, is false. Had it said "Kasparov is still *far* >stronger..." it might be true. but it said "humans", and as a collective >class, that is simply false, and provably so... When we compare humans and computers, we are interested in the best from each camp. Nobody is interested in the result of a match between Omid and Genesis for example ;-) > >>> >>>> >>>>Omid.
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.