Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:29:58 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 10:08:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: > >> >>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>correct. >>>> >>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>> >>>>:_( >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>and dispose of you. >> >>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >> >>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >> >>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >> >>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>questionmark moves from Junior! > >Because Kasparov didn't want deep blue to look bad. There is many games in >kasparov-deep blue where kasparov is dead won and then plays the most silly move >in the position after which kasparov is no longer dead won. > >Take the Ng5-h3?? move where Be3 wins eyes closed and which is a bullet move for >anyone with a FIDE rating. > >>-S So both Kasparov and Kramnik are participating in a conspiracy to avoid beating computers? Sounds about as factual as that JICCA paper citation you keep forgetting to provide to show that you have at least a tiny bit of accuracy in things you post here. Or that quote where I claimed my speedup=1+(NCPUS-1)*.7 works for _any_ number of CPUS. Where are they??? Over-active imagination? or, to be politically correct, "honesty challenged?" Or is everything you write to be taken as an outright fabrication? Or is it time to run and hide again?
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.