Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:44:54 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 15:35:15, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: [snip] >Blitz today is like 40:2 games in the times of 486/33, and nobody claimed that >these games were not worth a penny. In few years from now, our slow games will >become blitz. Then, if testing at 40:2 was alright some years ago, why should >blitz be despicable and worthless today on much faster machines? If Van Gogh and Da Vinci are alive, will you prefer them to paint a picture for you or some B+ Art student at a Junior College? If you have the ability to make a masterpiece, and you smear paint with your eyes closed it is a shame to my way of thinking. The oldest computer chess games are interesting historically, but the chess is commical (to some degree). When we move forward, I will prefer the better quality to the current quality. When blitz games have the quality of 40/2 currently, I will still run 40/2. I don't like passable quality when magnificence is possible. I don't like blitz games. I don't like lightning games. I am absolutely sure that this stance will never change. However, if other people enjoy them, I see no problem at all with that. It is only my opinion that these games are ugly because I know that much better can be had. The beauty of chess is in the sublime move and the unexpected beautiful stroke. Horrible gaffes churn my stomache. They remind me too much of my play, I suppose. ;-)
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.