Author: Todd Durham
Date: 08:59:39 04/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1999 at 03:35:51, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >On April 16, 1999 at 01:23:00, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On April 15, 1999 at 23:22:19, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>> >>>On April 15, 1999 at 22:47:53, Todd Durham wrote: >>> >>>>On April 15, 1999 at 20:55:37, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On April 15, 1999 at 19:10:24, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 15, 1999 at 09:25:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 15, 1999 at 01:29:09, Paulo Soares wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>All people know that Pelé and Michael Jordan had been the >>>>>>>>best athletes of all the times in the soccer and basket >>>>>>>>(I wait that no Argentine reads this). Which was the >>>>>>>>best chess program of all the times? >>>>>>>>In my opinion, "Psion", of Richard Lang. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Paulo Soares, from Brazil >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In my opinion, it is Sargon II (Dan and Kathe Spracklen, 1979). This engine on a >>>>>>>6502 processor has beaten several mainframes in an official event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Or maybe an engine from Richard Lang, maybe the one that was in the Mephisto >>>>>>>Amsterdam. It was such a "quantum leap" at that time (1985). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Or maybe the version of Rebel that ran on a small ChessMachine in Madrid in >>>>>>>1992. This one too has beaten a fast multiprocessor program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>Agree with all the above but don´t forget Fidelity Prestige 1982, I still play >>>>>>with it from time to time.I remember Smyslov lost a blitz game against it. >>>>>>Sargon2 was a major step it crushed Chess challenger 7,10, Voice Boris and the >>>>>>rest. >>>>>>Chessmachine was a wonder in 1991. Genius1 and Genius2 were outstanding >>>>>>1992-1993. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bertil SSDF >>>>> >>>>>I think none of them were great, maybe for their day, but for all time, none of >>>>>them. You have to go bt which is the strongest today, because they would whip >>>>>butt of all the program mentioned above. So it would have to come from todays >>>>>crop of programs. >>>>> >>>>>I would also wonder if the great Pele if he was to play today how he would rate. >>>>>I am sure among some of the good players, but I do not think a standout. I could >>>>>go on and give examples but it would just bore you. >>>> >>>>I bet Michael Jordan couldn't hit a shot either, if he were playing in today's >>>>NBA. ;) >>>> >>>>Todd >>> >>>The Jordon Comparison is a bit off, He retired last year, not 20 or 30 years >>>ago. Thats like saying if Tiger Woods retired tomorrow that he would not be >>>among the best in todays golfers. >>> >>>You can olny make these types of comparison I think when people have been out of >>>the sport for a few years. And with some sports 2 years is enough. Look at >>>Gymnastics and Arial Freestyle Skiing, with the improved and harder tricks being >>>pulled of every 1/4 year, not every year, then those athaletes of the past >>>cannot be compared with those of today. Simply because in there day they were >>>great, but today they would not be as skilled or even make it on a national >>>sided with the way they used to play games. >>> >>>Anyway its getting off chess, and with chess it is harder comparing players. >>>IMHO >>> >>>regards >>> >>>Micheal >> >>This is IMO a poor way to assess greatness. Anyone with a B.Sc. in Mathematics >>today knows more calculus than Isaac Newton ever did, but that Isaac Newton was >>not a greater mathematician that most everyone with a B.Sc. in mathematics today >>would be a ludicrous statement indeed. >> >>Dave > >Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. >For example the guy last year in US baseball that hit a record of so many home >run, was taking a drug that in our football we consider performance enhancing >and so does the IOC which runs the olympics. > >We had a player who took the same drug, when he was caught was banned for two >years from the sport. So to the US he is a hero, to the other like me and the >rest of Aus he is nothing more than a drug cheat. > >So there are many way in which to talk about greatness of some people. Some may >hold more weight than others, whereas other do not. > >So when we talk about the greatest chess program, we are talking about the best >of the bunch. Not how it played some exciting games or did this and that. Just >that what is the best. > >Jesse Owens who did athelics held so many records, he was great in his day. But >he is not the best. He would not even make the semi finals of the 100m race >today. > >Isaac Newton was a poineer, great in his day, today he would be nothing. Altight, this is just plane foolish. Sir Isaac, for all his personal faults, had TALENT. To say he wouldn't be anything today is astoundingly bad judgement. And to imply he was just in the right place at the right time is worse. His accomplishments in optics, gravitation theory and other areas of physics, as well as inventing the calculus so that he had the tools to do his work, is essentially unparalled. He did make the comment that he stood on the shoulders of giants, but the people that have come since have stood on his shoulders. To believe that with time to catch up he wouldn't be able to understand present day physics or mathematics AND make significant contributions boggles the mind, to quote Cindy Lauper(!). >Alot of >great discoveries happened by accident to people that were in the right place at >the right time. There discoveries were great at that time. But as for the people >behind them, that is debatable.
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.