Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 00:08:36 01/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2003 at 17:08:52, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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? Which weaknesses do you mean? And how are they taken away? Gordon > >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.