Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:47:09 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 22:33:50, France Levesque wrote: >On January 10, 2000 at 21:25:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>for the moment, yes. Kasparov won't be #1 forever. Then the cycle has a >>chance to start fresh, maybe. > >Agreed, it would be nice to see Anand have a chance, he seems clean cut, normal >and a family man. Do you think it is actually possible to have a 100% sane >Chess Champion ?? Miracles happen ! > >Bob....who do you think will replace Kaspy GM ?? > >A few years ago my chess programs were beating me every single game, it was then >it dawned on me that chess programs will soon be the best players in the >world....so....what is the point of playing anymore ?! > >Then.... > >Somebody pointed out to me that a car will always beat a human being in a race, >does that mean we should no longer praise fast runners in sports ?? Of course >we should. I am glad we have FICS and Yahoo chess etc....it keeps the game >human. I find that computers have improved my game immensely and I am very >proud of what Chessbase has done, I don't care what anyone says, they are >overall # 1 and set the mark for the rest. > >One thing I find strange is WHY does Shredder keep winning or placing high in >the majors yet not so high on SSDF ?! It seems strange to me.....I wonder if >killer books could be the reasons ( I have no proof of killer books, it is just >a suggestion/possiblity ) I actually like my Shredder 2.0 program except there >is no analysis engine. > >I forwarded the HSU article yesterday by email to the Chess Federation of Canada >and suggested they publish it in En Passant, for historical purposes. I I think >it is an actual "chess artifact" which ends the DB-Kasparov feud and battle for >all time. > >In regard to FIDE; > >I think that it would be interesting to have a computer and human separate >tournament and then have the champions of each playoff. This would be very good >publicity. Let's face it the Khalifman match went basically unheard of in the >world papers, as compared to say Fischer/Spassky 1972. > >Alright...I will get off my soap box now ! > >Take care, > >FranceL I have talked to at least a couple of players in that "class". Kamsky is another. And seems perfectly sane, polite, humerous, etc. So yes, I don't think that extreme paranoia is a prerequisite for being world champion. Although you couldn't prove it if you look at Kasparov and Fischer. And maybe to an extent, even Karpov...
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.