After all, no computer now or ever will be able to create the game of chess. Humans may be flawed, but as Rumi put it, the light can only come in through the cracks.
Joanna
ravi wrote:
>At around 27/11/06 6:10 pm, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
>>On Nov 27, 2006, at 5:56 PM, ravi wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><snip happens>
>>>alarm bells in my head, but I guess Kramnik felt he had tonnes of room
>>>to manoeuvre towards the Qe3 that he was looking at into the future. But
>>>what do I know ;-).
>>>
>>>
>>More than I do. I know as little of what you're talking about as when
>>
>>
>>
>
>If you strip away the jargon it's simple, really. There is a 6 game
>series going on between current men's chess #1 Kramnik and an Intel
>based computer (not a mainframe) called Deep Fritz. When they met last
>time, I think it was 4-4 draw. This time around is considered the first
>time the human starts out as the underdog and may well be the last time
>this thing is even competitive!
>
>Game 1 was on Saturday and was a draw. In today's game, which seemed a
>fairly aggressive one to me (others might differ), somewhere at the
>half-point of the game, Kramnik seemed to have gained a small advantage.
>As he pushed through with his pieces he failed to notice something very
>basic: that a particular move by the computer had put him at risk of
>being one move away from a checkmate. This is an amazing error on the
>part of such a skilled player!
>
>Unlike Kasparov, I don't find anything bawl-worthy about losing to a
>computer (perhaps because I have suffered that humiliation many times
>over, or perhaps because I think humans are dumber than computers ;-)),
>but nevertheless, it was dismaying to watch someone throw away a crucial
>game like that.
>
> --ravi
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>