Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:42:38 03/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2001 at 10:21:59, Richard Sutherland wrote: >On March 12, 2001 at 22:50:19, Dann Corbit wrote: > >SNIP > >>>Huh? Are you saying that blitz is not chess? The we could equally draw the line >>>and say that computerchess is not chess. >>> >>>Ofcourse its chess.... >> >>By the same token, throwing a bucket of paint against a wall is also art. >> >>I must begrudginly admit that blitz is chess. >>Ugly, putrid, artless, pathetic... >>But chess. > >It's not chess. Chess involves strategy and tactics. Blitz is little more than >tactics. Yeah I know, some will disagree with me, but, there it is, that's my >opinion. > >Richard I don't think that it is very sound to apply the same concepts for humans and for computers. What you and Dann say about blitz chess is probably valid for slow neurones computing at 1 N/S, but not necessarily for programs going one million times faster. There is another way to put it: blitz today on a 1Ghz machine is the equivalent of 40/120 on a 486/50, and in those times nobody said that 40/120 was "ugly, putrid, artless, pathetic". Enrique
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.