@lovlas @mdinnerspace 1. f3 a4 2. Kd2 also draws.
No, it doesn't. 1.f3 a4 2.Kd2 Kg5 3.Be3+ Kh5 4.Bg1 h2 and black wins.
Black wins with a nice sac by a pawn promotion. White's King is too far removed after capturing the a pawn. It gives a good go of it, advancing on the Queenside, too little, too late. White has a few "tricks" to create his passer, but Black is faster.
To all the prog fanboys:
O YE OF LITTLE FAITH!
The idols you worship are calculators, they are used to calculate the grocery bill.
You glorify calculators when you could admire the human intuition, brilliance, creativity and unique playing styles that stem from the soul.
Just because a boxer loses a fight vs. a robot (could easily be done today, killing the boxer) does not make the machine a great boxer. But in chess the machine that does the same is somehow a great chess player?????
Only chess has this idiocy of thinking.
O YE OF LITTLE FAITH!
The idols you worship are calculators, they are used to calculate the grocery bill.
You glorify calculators when you could admire the human intuition, brilliance, creativity and unique playing styles that stem from the soul.
Just because a boxer loses a fight vs. a robot (could easily be done today, killing the boxer) does not make the machine a great boxer. But in chess the machine that does the same is somehow a great chess player?????
Only chess has this idiocy of thinking.
#44 you are completely missing the point. This has nothing do with worshiping engines or not appreciating chess.
Worshiping engines :D
@lovlas
Maybe not with you, but if you think human players are not often compared to computers and if you think computers are not often considered to be better than humans in chess, you are blind bro.
If you keep humans and computers in different categories and don't consider what progs do as chess, then I am not referring to you. If not, read my post #44 again.
Maybe not with you, but if you think human players are not often compared to computers and if you think computers are not often considered to be better than humans in chess, you are blind bro.
If you keep humans and computers in different categories and don't consider what progs do as chess, then I am not referring to you. If not, read my post #44 again.
So go the masses upon discovering Zeus on high. A religion is born. There is no refutation. Machines are superior to human kind.
This addresses the topic. Man will never win vs the machine. He is inferior.
I'm with ya on this one NoLuck. It appears a "worship" mentality is out there that glorifies the comp's rating, which is highly inflated and not a true comparison to human ratings. (Except of course in a 60 minute or less game. But what does this tell us)?
This addresses the topic. Man will never win vs the machine. He is inferior.
I'm with ya on this one NoLuck. It appears a "worship" mentality is out there that glorifies the comp's rating, which is highly inflated and not a true comparison to human ratings. (Except of course in a 60 minute or less game. But what does this tell us)?
<Comment deleted by user>
The "hard data" was a match, old vs new computer software/hardware in a FIVE minute blitz match. Of course, the newer versions crushed the older, that is what it's about, getting faster and capable of storing more memory.
Computer ratings are based on these very fast time controls where humans are helpless. Programs refer to their opening and end game table bases while playing humans, making for an unfair playing field. It is not a test of chess skill, but rather one of a "glorified calculator" vs the unworthy human in fast time controls. (60 minutes and less)
Computer ratings are based on these very fast time controls where humans are helpless. Programs refer to their opening and end game table bases while playing humans, making for an unfair playing field. It is not a test of chess skill, but rather one of a "glorified calculator" vs the unworthy human in fast time controls. (60 minutes and less)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.