Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 12:05:55 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 10:11:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Unless he's playing against Deep Blue of course ... Vas > >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.