Author: Darrel Briley
Date: 13:06:07 09/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2005 at 15:53:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>that is quite right, but Eduard is NOT called for to give a scientifically
>balanced presentation of Zappa. Please try to understand what Ed is doing. He
>shows facts that contradict the general trend. Remember (or read it in the
>archives how Ed showed crazy weaknesses of for example FRITZ who's always said
>to be state of the art - and Ed proved that this couldn't be the case if ---
>well, see the examples for yourself) what Eduard is doing: to prove a generally
>accepted truth as wrong you don't need a deep study but it is sufficient if you
>give just some contradicting examples - here that Zappa can also lose games.
>This isn't directly contradicting the results of the last WCCC because the games
>on playchess have a different setting in many aspects than that of the WCCCC.
>But at least the losses contradict the here published "truths" that Zappa
>doesn't lose. - Fact is it DOES. And thanks to Eduard we all know it right now.
>(What is wrong with what Eduard is doing in your opinion?)
>
>Rolf
Rolf,
I see nothing wrong with what Eduard is doing. It just has little meaning for
me because it is incomplete information.
I don't think any reasonable person was under the impression that Zappa is
"unbeatable". If Ed's aim is to disprove a thing that has never been proven or
even generally accepted, or to convince the "unreasonable", then I think it's a
very good way for him to waste his time.
Now, if he wanted to show Zappa's weaknesses, as well as its strengths, then
posting all the games would be the way to do this.
Posting only losses makes it seem as if he has an axe to grind.
DB
This page took 0.01 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.