Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 18:03:32 09/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 1998 at 17:00:36, Serge Desmarais wrote: >On September 05, 1998 at 16:18:46, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>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 > > > Yes! That is funny... That is true that sometimes the objects we use seem to >do all they can to bother us : disappearing when you DO remember putting them in >THIS drawer, refusing to work properly, breaking and all... There is a novel >from Guy de Maupassant in which all the objects possessed my the main character >leave his house! And he could do nothing to stop them! Of course, he thinks he >has become mad at some point... > > >Serge Desmarais No matter how mad the character in the novel was, he is far to be so much mad as us are. Think in this: we all have at least 20 programs -40 sould be a moore exact number- and we still get ansious if we know that somewhere a new one is available. How do you call THAT? Fernando
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.