Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:55:28 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 12:19:55, Tapio Huuhka wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 05:49:32, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On June 13, 2001 at 03:42:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On June 12, 2001 at 23:56:26, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>Many IM's and GM's have felt the teeth of these and many other programs like >>>>Fritz, Junior, Tiger etc. >>>> >>>>However, it's true they lose to much lower rated players, even to me >>>>sometimes!;) >> >>That was a little wry humor, nothing more. I'ts not my fault you can't >>appreciate it! >>> >>>Humans have a hard time coping with this. Really? I think it's you not >>the GM's! >>> >>>A human who plays chess is an apple. A computer that plays chess is not an >>>orange, but it's not quite an apple, either. You can compare them, but not >>>perfectly. >>As if I didn't know the difference? The arrogance! >>> >>>A ludicrous example: Compare an unarmed human with a tank. A tank can blow up >>>a house at a range of over a kilometer, and can survive machine gun fire, >>>whereas an unarmed human cannot blow up a house at a range of even one meter, >>>and would fare badly against machine gun bullets. >>> >>>On the other hand, there are ditches that a tank cannot get out of, while a >>>human might have an easy time with these ditches. >>> >>>You can't deny the tank its strengths just because there's a ditch a human can >>>handle better. >>> >>>End of ludicrous example. Computers are getting better at being uniformly >>>strong, but they are not now, and will probably never be, perfect human analogs. >>> There will always be the possibility that a weak human player can say "duh" to >>>one of these machines -- sometimes. >> >>How do you know that? Today I agree, fifty years from now A.I. may be born and a >>"computer" for a lack of a better term will be irrepressible! >>> >>>bruce >> >>They only thing *Ludicrous* Bruce is your rude and ignorant reply! >>I can beat these machines far more than you can imagine, and I'm _not_ a >>_weak_ player! >>And why did you snip my post? >> >>I was bieng humorous with last sentence that you included in your >>reply! >> >>I've beaten some very strong players, _not_ just programms. >>I don't care to be compared as a *frail* human in regards to chess and GM's as >>*tanks* Mr. Moreland! >> >>By snipping my post, you missed my point entirely! >> >>I don't belittle your favorite "pet" , so please do not belittle me and my >>playing strength relative to GM's! >> >>Terry > >I hope you have calmed down by now.:) Maybe I'm missing something, but I found >Bruce's post just interesting, not insulting. I'm curious about your playing >strength, because I couldn't find you on the FIDE list. So, what do you think is >the playing strength of _not_ a weak player? :) > >Tapio I saw those few lines in the post, and I thought they were interesting, so I wrote a reply where I discussed that general topic. I didn't give one moment of consideration to Mr. McCracken's playing strength. I assumed he was a normal generic player like the rest of us. If he wants to announce that he's stronger than that, no problem. I would have responded the same way if the post had been written by Kasparov. bruce
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.