Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 01:55:46 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2001 at 16:54:08, Albert Silver wrote: >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 In 7 or 8 years from now, blitz games will be equivalent to our 40/120 games of today. Will you say the same about speed games then? Or where do you drop the line between blitz and "serious" games? I think that some criteria valid for humans don't apply to computer chess. 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.