Author: Günther Simon
Date: 13:45:54 07/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2005 at 16:27:09, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 01, 2005 at 14:25:23, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>Don´t spout Nonsense here. >>Hydra is a "strategical Patzer" like all the other machines. > >I'm just observing some facts , specialized machines like Hydra did crush a >strong GM that did his best against this monster...if you say that Hydra is a >strategical patzer, Michael Adams and other people doesn't say so...the machine >did play as a god of chess for them. >That single game doesn't say nothing to me , I trust more a GM than your >opinion...with all the respect for your opinion. > >w.b.r. >Otello > >>>From Adams interview at chessbase >>>... >>>"I think it proves that Hydra is a much stronger ‘player’ than any other >>>computer in the world. We may not be able to measure its strength in Elo, but it >>>is huge. I also suspect Hydra is stronger than any other human opponent. Okay, >>>it has to be proved in the future, but this is my impression at the moment and I >>>suspect it is accurate. I mean from my point of view I don’t think I played >>>terribly. I did my best and it just wasn’t good enough." >>> >>> >>>w.b.r. >>>Otello Why do you believe Adams without any doubt, when he is saying 'I played my best chess'?? What should he say else? This is a marketing world, why should he admit how bad and pro-computer he played actually? I really wonder how much people completely lack sense of logic after 6 little games in which Adams was crushed, but not because he played like a superstrong GM... (BTW,if one likes conspiracies he would perhaps suppose, Adams might have been paid for always playing 1.e4 and 1...e5 ;-)) Guenther
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.