Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 08:48:38 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 09:44:58, Bob Durrett wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 06:48:54, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > ><snip> > >>Our human stupidity is infinite in its dimensions so to speak. > >A truly profound observation. A logical corollary is that all the >accomplishments of chess programmers and GMs "is like nothing" in the grand >scheme of things. Indeed, all of Man's efforts are as nothing, with no >exceptions. We should all go out and shoot ourselves! > ><snip> > >>higher levels of _less_ ignorance. > >The "highest level" of human intellect is nothing to brag about. It, too, "is >as nothing" in the grand scheme of things. > ><snip> > >>Here I am also a bit less stupid than Kasparov thanks to my education in >logic. > >Sorry, Rolf, but all of your "learning" is also "as if nothing" in the grand >scheme of things. How do they say? All of mankind's ramblings are "much ado >about nothing." > ><snip> > >>It is beyond my science education why exactly Amir, who was in case of >>Kasparov's questioning DB2 output of great help, could dare to appear here >with so little data and no answers on simple questions. > >With "all" your "science education," you know less than 0.000000001 percent of >all that is worth knowing. You should not belittle the efforts of pour "dumb" >Amir for his efforts. Of course, all his efforts are "as if nothing" in the >grand scheme of things, too. Even Kasparov deserves credit for his trying. I >was truly entertained following his games with DJ [and later reading Amir's >comments] and am grateful to Kasparov and the Junior programmers for that. But >I, too, "am as nothing" in the grand scheme of things. > >Should we quit trying? I don't think so. > >Bob D. > ><snip> Much better is to ask Strong human players what are the true strength and weaknesses of today’s chess programs. With some prove to their statements Rather then to play games The statement is simple because if you compare DB with Junior You might also ask Amir to proof Junior is stronger then Fritz3 That simply doesn't make any sense Never forget humans are much better prepared against chess programs Then they where in the time of Deep Bleu If they where not Amir's statement most likely was proven already a long time ago. If you want to talk about science you have to start with looking at the practical facts with out facts there is no science. But you might suppose to understand it. A good comparison could be in the time of Alexander the great the Phalanx was a strong weapon But I would not go in a war with a modern equipped army. I don't think this has to be proven So it depends on how good is your opponent prepared to meet you. Marc
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.