Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:11:05 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 21:07:48, Tim George wrote: >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. Excuse me? The facts are Kasparov played far better chess. Are you a master? No? Well then you're not in a position to argue with me on whether Kasparov played better chess or not. Ciao
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.