Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:08:18 02/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2000 at 21:59:24, John Warfield wrote:
>On February 03, 2000 at 19:57:52, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>On February 03, 2000 at 19:55:06, John Warfield wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> What do you mean small sample? There are atleast 8 games between Karpov and
>>>computers which have been made public, Karpov is and was a 2700 rated player, if
>>>a 2700 rated player cannot defeat computers that are struggling to be recognized
>>>as 2500 players, I think it is a fair assumption to say that he sucks at playing
>>>against them.
>>
>>Not only is it not a fair assumption, it has no mathematical basis.
>>
>
> Not everything that is true can be proved mathematically. So what's your
>point?
Saying someone "sucks" at something is a very strong statement. Basing such a
strong statement on very little data is irresponsible.
>>In other words, it's a guess and {probably} a rather bad one at that.
>
> That's your opinion I have another view.
It's not an opinion that it is just a guess. That is a fact. You may be right,
but quite frankly, I doubt it. My guess [and it *is* just a guess] that he
could do better against computers than perhaps all but 100 of the people on the
entire planet. In my view, that does not "suck."
Karpov gets on peoples nerves because he sues everything in sight. But that
does not make him a bad player. Neither does a microscopic sample of games.
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.