Author: Amir
Date: 05:07:12 06/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2005 at 06:43:14, Madhavan wrote: >On June 28, 2005 at 06:25:23, Amir wrote: > >>On June 28, 2005 at 05:19:06, Madhavan wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 2005 at 23:47:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 27, 2005 at 14:04:41, William Sorin wrote: >>>> >>>>>After reading the Archives you get the impression That humans played some kind >>>>>of Super Qualtity Chess that programs were far from Understanding and matching. >>>>>It was said That All us Dumb people don't understand how strong a Grandmaster >>>>>really is, Yet I just witnessed Hydra Tear Michael Adams to Shreds game after >>>>>game, and wondered if In fact Adams was even a Grandmaster at all!! >>>> >>>> >>>>Not sure who you mean. But I can think of several GM players that are really >>>>difficult opponents for computers. Roman is certainly one. Shirov is another. >>>>Even Bill Lombardy (the last time I talked with him anyway, which was 3-4 years >>>>ago at least) was a "computer problem". >>> >>>>There are others as well... >>> >>>Anand and Topalov,ofcourse. >> >>No proof that Anand and Topalov are good anti-comp players, especially Topalov >>isn't. > >I'd direct you to this link >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?434025 > >what's anti-computer players?phew utter nonsense >do you have any webpage about anti-computer players? Some GMs like Roman are good at playing comps. They have lots of experience, as anyone who has been on ICC for the last 5 to 10 years knows. Topalov is not one of them, and I have not seen any evidence that Anand is good against comps. *YOU* replied to Hyatt posting in which he mentioned GMs like Roman. So where is the evidence that Topalov and Anand are good against comps?
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.