Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:54:08 03/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2001 at 10:42:38, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>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
Fair enough, but I never thought too much of those 40/2h games on 486/50s
either.
Albert
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.