Author: Graham Laight
Date: 01:49:47 01/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2003 at 01:06:26, Terry McCracken wrote:
>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.
No. Once Alex Cure ("The Fox") fixed the opening book so that the queens stayed
on the board, Kramnik never won a game.
Do the DJ team have access to Alex Cure? If not, they should ship him over as a
matter of emergency. He saved Fritz IMO.
-g
>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.