Author: allan johnson
Date: 18:26:12 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 20:50:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 20:28:37, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 30, 2003 at 19:57:34, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On January 30, 2003 at 19:48:10, Rodney Topor wrote: >>> >>>>On January 30, 2003 at 19:43:51, Arshad Syed wrote: >>>> >>>>>After Game 1, I was very dissapointed about Junior. I didn't really think Junior >>>>>would come back to win. Fantastic performance by DF. Hope to see one more such >>>>>win, only without a Kasparov error. So far, all the games lost by DF and DJ have >>>>>been mainly due to blunders on Kramnik's or Kasparov's part. Looking forward to >>>>>see DJ break this trend. >>>> >>>>Do you meain to claim that all the games _won_ by DF and DJ have been mainly due >>>>to blunders by Kramnik or Kasparov? Do others agree? >>>> >>>>Rodney >>> >>>I think that is most often the case. i.e. a clear proven blunder. But there >>>might be better players against computers than Kasparov or Kramnik. >>> It might well be that their extra few hundred ELO points don't make all that >>>much difference against computers, compared to another person who is very >>>special in anti-computer playing. Isn't Mr. Nemeth only about 2100 ELO, and >>>maybe equal to Kasparov or Kramnik against computers? >>>S.Taylor >> >>No >> >>I do not believe that Nemeth can score even 1.5/6 against Junior in the >>condition that kasparov is playing. >> >>Uri > > >Nobody here seems to like logic. > Rolf Has anyone seen Eduard play the games he claims to have won?How do we know they weren't contrived? I think the fact that computers don't suffer nerves and are able to calculate extremely well make them difficult opponents. Al >Uri,how could youknow? How can you say conditions?Why should Eduard be in >Kasparovs conditions?? > >And to the others above: You conclude that others are better than the actually >best players.This is nonsense. These two are not the best for psychological >reasons but for their deep insights. The point is this. They simply are not used >to play compsand it also makes no sense for them. Money in such shows alone >can't make them students again. Since both however are fantastic calculators too >I make the only possible conclusion. They simply help theprogs to look good. >Period. > >If you ask but why? then I say because they got million $$ for nothing. This is >corrupting. > >Eduard would not be much better in front of a big crowd because he's used to. > > > >Rolf Tueschen
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.