Test Position: 1.Rxg4!

[yanquis1972]

anand is also quite the blitz mind, let's not forget.

ed was a forerunner in the idea that engines should be made as ideal analysis partners instead of fritz-like number crunchers. he organized as many human-computer games as he could (back when that meant something) & i believe did quite well in them. i think (or at least hope) larry and don are sort of carrying that ideological torch with komodo now that ed has passed it on.

[Terry McCracken]

wow. the little engine that could.

Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agree

Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.

I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.

Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.

He lost some fast games so indeed it is correct!

My point was that the whole match was not all blitz. As your quote "those were speed games" clearly indicated. On ancient hardware Rebel 10 had and amazing result against Anand. The fact that you think that blitz games are not important is your opinion, however, one that some would not agree.

The point is those tounament games are not relavent and Anand didn't lose at those time controls, it's that simple.

Losing some blitz and active games when the match is so short only serves as good advertising and infact overrates the outcome and the engine and downplays the genius of Anand.

Terry, agreed! I was never at odds with you to this , I was just saying Rebel had a good result. To beat Anand, even in blitz is amazing , and this was my only point. Anyways, enough of our bantering, we'll just get moderated anyways.

Kind regards,

Robert

I'm sorry about last night...I was very edgy. Part of my reaction came about due to all these derivitives and all the weight given to them in blitz games against Rybka. It doesn't tell the real story.

As for the rest, I concur with your point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Robert Flesher]

wow. the little engine that could.

Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agree

Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.

I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.

Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.

He lost some fast games so indeed it is correct!

My point was that the whole match was not all blitz. As your quote "those were speed games" clearly indicated. On ancient hardware Rebel 10 had and amazing result against Anand. The fact that you think that blitz games are not important is your opinion, however, one that some would not agree.

The point is those tounament games are not relavent and Anand didn't lose at those time controls, it's that simple.

Losing some blitz and active games when the match is so short only serves as good advertising and infact overrates the outcome and the engine and downplays the genius of Anand.

Terry, agreed! I was never at odds with you to this , I was just saying Rebel had a good result. To beat Anand, even in blitz is amazing , and this was my only point. Anyways, enough of our bantering, we'll just get moderated anyways.

Kind regards,

Robert

I'm sorry about last night...I was very edgy. Part of my reaction came about due to all these derivitives and all the weight given to them in blitz games against Rybka. It doesn't tell the real story.

As for the rest, I concur with your point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Robert Flesher]

wow. the little engine that could.

Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agree

Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.

I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.

Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.

He lost some fast games so indeed it is correct!

My point was that the whole match was not all blitz. As your quote "those were speed games" clearly indicated. On ancient hardware Rebel 10 had and amazing result against Anand. The fact that you think that blitz games are not important is your opinion, however, one that some would not agree.

The point is those tounament games are not relavent and Anand didn't lose at those time controls, it's that simple.

Losing some blitz and active games when the match is so short only serves as good advertising and infact overrates the outcome and the engine and downplays the genius of Anand.

Terry, agreed! I was never at odds with you to this , I was just saying Rebel had a good result. To beat Anand, even in blitz is amazing , and this was my only point. Anyways, enough of our bantering, we'll just get moderated anyways.

Kind regards,

Robert

I'm sorry about last night...I was very edgy. Part of my reaction came about due to all these derivitives and all the weight given to them in blitz games against Rybka. It doesn't tell the real story.

As for the rest, I concur with your point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Terry, no hardly feelings, aqua sub ponte.