Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:11:29 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: > >> >>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>correct. >>>> >>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>> >>>>:_( >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>and dispose of you. >> >>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >> >>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >> >>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >> >>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>questionmark moves from Junior! >> >>-S. > >I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) > >Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >reviewed. > >Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. However in kasparov-fritz, kasparov at a point needed to make a full point to not lose the match. That game fritz has 0.000000000000% of a chance. From start to end kasparov completely killed it. When kasparov wants to win, he will win from the machine. For how many years to go, i do not know. So far he just toyed with them in matches. >Vas
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.