Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:10:01 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 04:55:46, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>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
My criteria is fairly simple: what is the overall level of the game? I didn't
think much of those games on 486s because I thought them to be of very irregular
and often dubious quality. So they no longer need 2 hours to make those moves,
they can play the same nonsense in 5 minutes. The quality of the game is the
same. On the other hand, today is a different matter. The level of the programs
on the current hardware IS impressive, and while there may be a way to go still,
they are clearly to be taken seriously. That's the difference I perceive.
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.