Author: Steve
Date: 22:45:25 05/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2000 at 17:07:47, Pete R. wrote: >On May 02, 2000 at 13:10:18, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: > >>http://www.forbes.com/asap/99/0222/071.htm JAFM > >Hmm. Well, despite his claims of not being a sore loser, it still reads that >way. Unfounded accusations always appear petulant. Secondly his claims about >chess representing the intelligence or artistic skills of humanity or whatever >is also a bit of bluster. Fact is, chess is governed by simple, concrete rules, >and despite its complexity this ultimately aligns it with the strengths of >calculating machines, not intelligent beings with general-purpose brains. It >ain't theoretical physics, or anything else that requires imaginative thought. >The fact that computers can produce similar results via a method requiring zero >intelligence is proof of that. Well, that's a bit harsh. Chessplayers, lacking the computational ability of computers, often demonstrate "imaginative thought" of a high order when playing chess. But I share your feeling that chess is hardly the summit of human achievement. Kasparov claims that it is simply because he is an egomaniac and chess happens to be what he's good at. > >He also could have made a deal with Hsu if he were really interested in >continuing the man-machine experiment. Easily. Instead he took the attitude >that Hsu should get it all done beforehand, when Kasparov's own agreement would >bring the sponsor money and make it happen. About as much effort as it would >take to get off the couch and change the channel, instead of using the remote. >In other words despite what he appears to claim in this article, his actual >enthusiasm for another such project is essentially zero. Why? Because he got a >special delivery from Ass-Handers(tm). ;)
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.