Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 08:24:21 06/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2005 at 11:13:26, Madhavan wrote:
>On June 20, 2005 at 11:11:54, Sune Larsson wrote:
>
>>On June 20, 2005 at 11:01:50, Madhavan wrote:
>>
>>>On June 20, 2005 at 10:59:54, Sune Larsson wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 20, 2005 at 10:47:43, Madhavan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On June 20, 2005 at 10:42:53, Sune Larsson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On June 20, 2005 at 10:13:55, Madhavan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This guy claims Adams can beat hydra,he has produced enough nonsense in his
>>>>>>>article to chessbase,since we all know that match is probably going to end in a
>>>>>>>draw either by match fixing or playing few game and later gambling it to equal
>>>>>>>score.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In any case Hydra is favourite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense? Why so disrespectful - and just how do you read his article? I find
>>>>>>this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"...he *might* achieve a *draw*, that means 3:3. **Maybe** he can even beat
>>>>>>Hydra, if..."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I havent read the whole article as I just noticed some headlines and a few
>>>>>description.
>>>>>
>>>>>subject title is all that matters,clearly claims "Adams can beat Hydra" instead
>>>>>of 3:3
>>>>>
>>>>>see the subject title later the content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, do you think this subject title comes from GM Nickel - or from Chessbase?
>>>>
>>>> "Before you make a move you must learn to sometimes sit on your hands..."
>>>
>>>It comes from you,thats how you were doing.
>>
>>
>> Right - and the subject title you were refering to like this:
>>
>>"subject title is all that matters,clearly claims "Adams can beat Hydra" instead
>>of 3:3
>>see the subject title later the content."
>>
>>
>> Do you think the subject title you are refering to comes from
>> GM Nickel - or from ChessBase?
>
>GM Nickel of course.Just as i mentioned that one came from you.
>I also said Nickel wrote enough nonsense in his "article" to chessbase.
No, the subject title was chosen by CB. GM Nickel didn't write a single
word. It was an interview on the server chessfriend_dot_com.
/S
>
>> /S
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> /S
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>/S
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2462
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some deficits of Hydra were also seen in the recent PÂL/CSS-Freestyle Tournament
>>>>>>>on playchess.com, where the sea monster didn't even reach the quarter finals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nickel: Well, this is of course a hot potato since Hydra as in correspondence
>>>>>>>chess had to play against strong players, amongst them even some FIDE
>>>>>>>grandmasters who could use engines as in "advanced chess". I was also surprised
>>>>>>>by Hydra's failure, but on consideration I realised that all programs including
>>>>>>>Shredder 9, Fritz 8 and Junior 9 which were also running on strong machines, got
>>>>>>>into trouble, when playing without human advice. Probably this wouldn't have
>>>>>>>happened with shorter time limits, let's say 15 minute games or even shorter,
>>>>>>>but in one hour games (one hour per player plus 15 sec. per move), human chess
>>>>>>>competence can already show its qualities in tandem with engines. By the way, I
>>>>>>>also participated in this very interesting event and didn't manage to reach the
>>>>>>>quarter finals either. However in the process I met Hydra again and played a
>>>>>>>nice game which was drawn after 102 moves. The sea monster must have gotten
>>>>>>>tired of attacking my fortress without success.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Once again what is your bet on the match Hydra-Adams...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nickel: Okay, it will very hard for any human being, but as I always hold on for
>>>>>>>humanity, and especially as Michael Adams is a gifted positional player, I think
>>>>>>>he might achieve a draw, that means 3:3. Maybe he can even beat Hydra, if he is
>>>>>>>able to completely control his emotions and avoid any unclear complications.
>>>>>>>Should this be so, he could succeed where Kasparov failed when playing Deep Blue
>>>>>>>eight years ago. This would mean that humans have learned since then even though
>>>>>>>the computers didn't get weaker, but obviously stronger since that time. Hydra,
>>>>>>>don't forget, is supposed to be stronger than good old Deep Blue!
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.