03 Jan 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo what? There are few forced mates in 99 that are solvable by humans, regardless of how clever they may be. Many humans would not be able to win with 2N v. P, even without a 99-move limit. Why do we expect anything other than an engine-generated solution to such problems?
True, but how hard can it be to press a button on a keyboard? If I solved a mate-in-99 with Fritz, does people say "Oh, how clever you are"? I don't think so.
I know Xantoz is intelligent (no Smiley here) but even my nephew, 9 years old can press a button. Does this mean that he is clever as Xantoz? I don't think so.
03 Jan 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThat's part of the fun, the unexpectedness of the human solution. It's why we honour people like Fischer for Byrne v. Fischer (Oct 17 1956) "The Game of the Century", and Kasparov for Kasparov v. Topalov (Jan 20 1999) "Kasparov's Immortal Game". The depth of their calculations OTB is staggering.
So what? There are few forced mates in 99 that are solvable by humans, regardless of how clever they may be. Many humans would not be able to win with 2N v. P, even without a 99-move limit. Why do we expect anything [b]other than an engine-generated solution to such problems?[/b]
Of course, there's nothing wrong with computer solutions. I use them all the time. After all, a computer will only do what it's told - the impressive bit then becomes the programming rather than the solution. Taking credit for using a program with built in modules that solve the problem with a minimum of input from the user is slightly less impressive, but if it helps further the user's understanding of the problem and the solution then I'm all for it. Just don't expect champagne for that one. 😉
03 Jan 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI am impressed by someone solving a problem by brain than by computer, but that's how I am.
So what? There are few forced mates in 99 that are solvable by humans, regardless of how clever they may be. Many humans would not be able to win with 2N v. P, even without a 99-move limit. Why do we expect anything [b]other than an engine-generated solution to such problems?[/b]
I am not easily impressed that someone knows how to press keys.
03 Jan 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasOne day a person's car was making weird noices. He stopped at the first service station and had it checked. The guy from the station looked at it, took a hammer and slightlykicked the motorhouse. He started the engine again, all went well, and he said: that will be 150 Euro's, Sir. The car owner was shocked andsaid: Why, the only thing you did was giving it a light kick with the hammer. Yes, the service man said, that's 2 euros for the effort and depreciation of the hammer, and 148 euros for the knowledge of where to hit.
I am impressed by someone solving a problem by brain than by computer, but that's how I am.
I am not easily impressed that someone knows how to press keys.
03 Jan 07
Originally posted by PBE6Yes, but a 2N v. P endgame is anything but fun. It's not even interesting to play through. It has little aesthetic value. The reason we can enjoy games like Byrne-Fischer is that, while the combinations are deep, they are not unfathomable.
That's part of the fun, the unexpectedness of the human solution. It's why we honour people like Fischer for Byrne v. Fischer (Oct 17 1956) "The Game of the Century", and Kasparov for Kasparov v. Topalov (Jan 20 1999) "Kasparov's Immortal Game". The depth of their calculations OTB is staggering.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with computer solutions. I ...[text shortened]... and the solution then I'm all for it. Just don't expect champagne for that one. 😉
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThe reason we enjoy games like Byrne-Fischer is that we are inspired by Fischer's ability and self-confidence OTB. On top of everything else, Fischer was only 13 at the time...it's amazing to see someone so young with such focus. But how many of us would sacrifice our queen for a minor piece storm? It was obviously not unfathomable - Fischer fathomed it. But it was something beyond the abilities of most casual (and even most competitive) players, and it showed us something new and wonderful. That's where the pleasure is derived, from the revelation of new plateaus.
Yes, but a 2N v. P endgame is anything but fun. It's not even interesting to play through. It has little aesthetic value. The reason we can enjoy games like Byrne-Fischer is that, while the combinations are deep, they are not unfathomable.
05 Jan 07
Pardon me but I got lost with the answer to #2. When he asks for "the answer to the series", does he mean what does it expands to? If that is the case I would expect something like:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz - [many combinations] + x^26
What am I missing here? Aren't they all unknown variables?