Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 13:18:46 09/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 1998 at 15:41:33, Serge Desmarais wrote: >On September 05, 1998 at 10:48:40, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi srrge: >>Well, you said it: a GM, being a human being, can subestimate an opponent!! A GM >>maybe gets bore; a GM maybe want to piss. A computer does not. There our chance >>is. Of course you are right in a lot of things that I also know; I wwas just >>giving a new glance to this in order not to fall in a dogma. I have the feeling >>that computer perfomance Vs humans has been sistematically downgraded. Look at >>what we do ourselves: each time we are beaten we just forget the game: each >>scarce time we get a draw or a winning, we rush to save the game and show it to >>our friends and you sincerely have the impression you are thre great thing. I >>have seen many master being defeated badly one game after another by my top >>programs, but then they win just one and begin to laugh on the computer, "this >>stupid beast". >>regards >>fernando > > > An amateur who almost lose about ALL his games against a certain program will >praise his first win! He will shaow it to you, giving and explaining all the >variations and subvariations and what he intended to play if the computer had >played this or that. It is like the same as beating Kasparov. If he beats me 99 >times but in the 100th game he blunders, I will put the emphasis on THAT last >game because it is above what could be expected and what the average game score >was. > > As for the "stupid beast", I think that people feel uneasy about losing a >game to a "thing", especially when it is a game of reflection and strategy! >Masters are even more upset by that, since they are titled players and they has >to achieve special results to get the title. Not so long ago, chess was seen as >a game necessitating a good intelligence, while its best performers were >regarded as Geniuses. Now, if a "thing", a unintelligent object, can do as good >or better than them, maybe tis doesn't require any intelligence, after all? And >this forces us to define more accurately the concept of "intelligence" or to >include the computers amongst the intelligent "things" in the universe. Though, >for me, a computer is not more intelligent than a toaster or a rock, I remember >discussing it with a friend, once. He was saying that there was a gradation in >intelligence and that a computer was "more" intelligent than a toaster, as >intelligent as an ant, but less intelligent than a rat, for example! > Well, I would say that thins not only are intelligent, but even cunning and perverse. Each time I talk about how good things are going on, if I do that near my Renault, he lesson me and the following day he gets mad and I must expende some money in repairs. The same with almost any appliance. Beware, the are lessoning us all the time! Fernando > >Serge Desmarais
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.