Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 22:06:26 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 21:25:41, Jeff White wrote: >On January 27, 2003 at 19:22:19, andrew tanner wrote: > >> There seems to be no basis for this belief other than DEEP BLUE and it's >>legacy, which is a legacy of "the sky is falling" type of despair. If computers >>continue to improve tactically, then GM's will learn from them and also improve >>tactically. Man has always improved in everything he does. Accelerated rates of >>improvement for chess computers with faster hardware or knowldege doesn't >>automatically translate into wins against strong GM's. Bring it on. >> >> -A.T. > >In my opinion, until a computer beats a human World Champion under REAL match >conditions (24 game match @ 2 1/2 hours for 40 moves.) you can't REALLY take >these kinds of matches serious. They are fun to watch, but until it is possible >to play a real match against the World Champion or any GM that will agree to >play under these conditions, that's all they'll be to me. > >Regards, >Jeff Jeff, you've made a very valid point, thank-you! Just think what would have happened if Kramink had at least 4 more games to play, (Only 12), what do you think the result probably would've been? I personally think he'd have won hands down! I feel you'll agree with me on this. Best Regards, Terry
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.