Author: Tim George
Date: 18:07:48 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 01:53:38, Terry McCracken wrote: >On January 30, 2006 at 00:28:28, Derek Paquette wrote: > >>On January 30, 2006 at 00:14:11, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >> >>>On January 29, 2006 at 22:09:58, Derek Paquette wrote: >>> >>>>Does anyone think it would be possible or on the horizon to see Rybka final >>>>version playing a well known grandmaster, say 2700+ elo?? A 15 game match would >>>>be nice...is this possible or am I dreaming. I personally think that Rybka >>>>would do atleast 9.5-5.5 vs anyone in the world at this point, >>>> >>>>is the author of rybka considering this, no one doubts rybka would win, but by >>>>how much (atleast i doubt anyone doubts it could beat anyone) >>> >>>Really?? I still think Top GMs like Topalov,kasparov,Anand can beat it. >> >>Kasparov couldn't beat Deep Blue II and that machine was made 9 years ago, he >>couldn't beat fritz 8, junior 8 which are a hundred elo points lower than rybka, >>and kramnik couldn't beat DF7, also, Bareev couldn't beat HIARCS 9 BAREEV, which >>is weaker than hiarcs 9 and hiarcs 10. With super GM's historical track record >>vs programs I certainly wouldn't bet on the humans. Aside from that, man vs >>machine championships, both of them were disasterous for the humans, infact >>there is no evidence a human can beat even a mid range program in a match >>setting. (not a modern program) > >That is simply ignorant BS. Why do you make such silly assertions? > >Did you understand that Kasparov didn't try to win against DJ in the last game? >Did you know Kasparov was winning, but asked for a draw? > >Your understanding of GM's appears non-existant. Kasparov when he wanted, beat >Fritz in 2003, for the simple fact he had to win, after a blowing a win earlier. > >He blew the win due to the circumstances of the match, he had to wear that >stupid 3-D head gear which was giving him headaches. He played better than any >program, even when he lost. Did you notice he almost always had a win, even when >though he failed to bring home the point. Uri is right, Kasparov didn't have the >real interest to win, just put on a good show. > >He outplayed Deep Blue II but really screwed up in his last game. I wouldn't >even count Game 6 as Kasparov fudged the move order. Game two he was troubled by >Be4!! and tossed a draw...he didn't even check the perpetual check out. He gave >Deep Blue II too much credit to Deep Blue IIs calculating abilitiy, and >_assumed_ he was lost, when in fact he wasn't. > >It's sad to see him obtain wins and draws and let them slip. No question >Kasparov was a better player than Deep Blue II, or any program. > >Take a look at George Tsavdaris's game against Rybka, he totally out played the >program and won...he isn't a GM either, only an expert, yet he won regardless. >Quite brilliantly, I might add. > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?483225 > >So a GM can do much better, if he wants to! > >You misjudge Super GM strength. I've beaten top programs, and I'm not a GM. > >There are many examples of humans, GM and less, beating top programs. > >You always go by the final result in matches, without fully grasping the GM's >play. You would think differently, if you knew why these top players lost or >drew. You don't. > >Terry Please Terry stop your nonsense and BS, you are going on feeling and not facts, because you want Kasparov to play better doesn't mean he is.
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.