Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 07:10:03 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 23:47:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... it may well be that those who have been denied in life find their life in chess... chess seems to be a world of its own with little or no interaction... i think music and mathematics may fall into this category also... all three - chess, music, math are nonverbal and as such have no need of interaction with the 'real' world... chess seems to displace life, to become a world of its own... one day you look up and you realize you have no idea what's goin' on...
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.