the thing about computers beating humans at chess is that chess is an extremely easy game to program a computer to play it's culturally prestigious as a symbol of inteligence but it's difficult in ways that noticing things and plotting out potential outcomes are the hard parts and those are far easier for a computer
it's like being alarmed that a computer is capable of adding and storing large numbers better than a person
I still felt bad for that Korean Go player who was made to smoke by the computer touchers at Oxford. I felt bad when I was a kid and my dad beat me at chess.
Pretty sure I could beat him as black now, but I don't enjoy chess. Maybe couldn't beat him in a fair fight because he's bigger than me and works out. He owns a Luger I should inherit.
I don't actually know how to play go but I suspect it's similar computationally but with more potential states of the board chess is limited by the fact that it can only go to 200 rounds. It ultimately doesn't matter that much that computers are more suited than humans for board games because the point of games is to have fun and these are machines designed specifically to be good at the game. A motorbike could beat a human in a race but that doesn't invalidate athletes who train to win footraces
If it helps anything that Korean Go player called it the best game of his life and seemed to have had fun
Fighting STEMlords and other bad people is always fun. Try to choose a game you can win. E.g. protracted people's war. I fucking wish I was bi. Not even joking. When I used meth I only wanted to fuck women and fight people. Vile drug but at least it killed Hitler.
really it was the background of extreme antisemitism, cultural impact of the eugenics movement and obsession with Prussian militarism if I had to pick three factors
the thing about computers beating humans at chess is that chess is an extremely easy game to program a computer to play it's culturally prestigious as a symbol of inteligence but it's difficult in ways that noticing things and plotting out potential outcomes are the hard parts and those are far easier for a computer
it's like being alarmed that a computer is capable of adding and storing large numbers better than a person
I still felt bad for that Korean Go player who was made to smoke by the computer touchers at Oxford. I felt bad when I was a kid and my dad beat me at chess.
Pretty sure I could beat him as black now, but I don't enjoy chess. Maybe couldn't beat him in a fair fight because he's bigger than me and works out. He owns a Luger I should inherit.
I don't actually know how to play go but I suspect it's similar computationally but with more potential states of the board chess is limited by the fact that it can only go to 200 rounds. It ultimately doesn't matter that much that computers are more suited than humans for board games because the point of games is to have fun and these are machines designed specifically to be good at the game. A motorbike could beat a human in a race but that doesn't invalidate athletes who train to win footraces
If it helps anything that Korean Go player called it the best game of his life and seemed to have had fun
Fighting STEMlords and other bad people is always fun. Try to choose a game you can win. E.g. protracted people's war. I fucking wish I was bi. Not even joking. When I used meth I only wanted to fuck women and fight people. Vile drug but at least it killed Hitler.
Pretty sure Hitler shot himself. Either way he killed himself to avoid capture by the red army so the Soviet Union killed Hitler.
Winning a game can be fun but it's also only fun if there was a possibility of not winning.
Removed by mod
he was deranged and not thinking clearly long before he started on amphetamines although they didn't help
Removed by mod
really it was the background of extreme antisemitism, cultural impact of the eugenics movement and obsession with Prussian militarism if I had to pick three factors