Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 14:08:52 01/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 13:18:07, Gordon Rattray wrote: >On January 22, 2003 at 13:03:54, Matthew Hull wrote: > >[snip] > >>The machine has it's advantages, the man has his. How is that lame? It is the >>nature of man/machine contest. The machine can play perfect endgames, but is a >>moron in closed positions. The human is brilliant in closed positions, but >>plays imperfect endgames. >> >>Is it not wrong to cripple one side's advantages? > > >Well said. I agree entirely. > >It's either a "man versus machine" match or it's not. And if it's the former, >why do people get upset at a machine being a machine and a human being a human?! > I'd like to think the contest is a comparison of strengths and weaknesses, but >not if the machine's strengths are being taken away from it. What about the machine weaknesses that are taken away? Miguel > >Gordon > > >> >>Regards, >>Matt > >[snip]
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.