Presumably, and you can answer this better than I can, most US pilots have at least simulator experience flying head-to-head against allied pilots who had different training. Plus, they have lots of co-workers with extensive combat experience.
I'm guessing that is not the case for many pilots from other countries than our allies. Obviously the Russians and Chinese will be well trained, but perhaps won't have access to the experience, and won't have trusted allies with experience and state of the art simulators.
LOL that is a truly hilarious picture. "Ha! That'll show them, I just flew to Iran!" "Hey George, I think you're off course a little bit." "Uhhhhhh... I'll be in the restroom...."
I'm only a class player, but it isn't just that it makes sense. That is part of it. But even where it makes sense, most strong players can't remember thousands of lines 15 or 20 moves deep.
My best tournament game ever, a win against 2150+ player in standard time controls, was a Budapest Gambit where my opponent made a weak early queen exchange on d6, after which I slowly punished him, won a pawn, and the game. I understand the themes. I understand the game. If you played out the moves, I can explain each move. But I could not just reach down and make all the moves cold. I could memorize a few games like that if I tried; but certainly not a random one of my games from month, much less last year.
My friend is 2300 rated. He can recite most of the games he ever played. And he doesn't actually have a good memory compared to most people his rating; he wins via tactics. Many of the 2200 players at the tournaments have a much better memory than him.
Players over 2700 ("Super-GMs") generally are familiar with all or nearly all the games played by the other 2700s their whole careers, plus thousands of historic games, and thousands of 2600-level games with significant openings. Plus they memorize large numbers of lines that haven't been played, because they have to in order to play at that level. They have to have prepared surprises for all their opponents, because their opponents do too.
We know how, there are just not very many who bother. On the "knowing how" metric we're one of the top in the world. Only a few bored backwaters with nothing to do beat us, like Armenia or Iceland.
Why do you think that a multi-parallel system cannot study and play in "real time".
Because I am familiar with the code and so I know that they "do not" study and play at the same time. I did not say that they "cannot." They are not programmed to do so, and if they were, it would be considered cheating. And the time it was accused, there was a clear line between altering the program, and running the program.
Biggest in what way? Okay, it wasn't biggest using the metric you used, but that doesn't prove anything. Maybe it was biggest by having the biggest consequences in the future? Maybe it did, or didn't, but you don't establish anything at all with your argument. All you have are some bare assertions.
Revisionist is going back and saying that what happened that mattered didn't matter unless the people doing it knew the future and exactly how it would matter.
Gates didn't know the future, but he knew he wanted a deal, not that had the biggest cash payouts, but that made people count on his company, that made his company the one with platform lock. I'm of the opinion that it was the biggest deal, the most important deal, because of how harmful it was to the industry in the future. But like it or not, claiming that MS establishing platform lock wasn't a huge deal... that's just daft. And revisionist.
That's not true, the old MS-BASIC (pre-DOS) was quality software. It left out lots of features you would have wanted, but managed to get a working BASIC onto a tiny ROM that was appropriate for early personal computers. A lot of people didn't think you could get a high level language into that small a space and still have it be useful. As a child I used various computers that had those ROMs, or copycats. It was important work that pushed computing forwards.
Their early spreadsheets were also very good.
It is likely that Gates was a better software developer than the programmers he hired, and that he stopped writing code entirely long before the IBM deal, to focus on business.
Gates makes more money than Magnus Carlsen, but I suspect that right now Carlsen, who just won the World Chess Championship, and has a side job as a model, could command higher rates for promotional appearances.
Even attempting to negotiate a higher fee would be a waste of Gates' time.
I'm at better than the 90% percentile in rated chess (in the US), and I'd get mated in 71 seconds too, or else more likely just flag after 2 minutes. The format is a joke; even with 5 minutes, it is well known that a club player like me needs more time than that just to walk through the basics and not blunder. With a rating difference, less time hurts the lower rated player. And 2 minutes is the fastest possible to play, and is much faster than most players ever play, including in casual games. 3 minutes is the fastest you'll normally see at a chess club, and even that is too fast for most of the players who like blitz. Normally at a chess club there will be people playing 5 minute, and others playing much longer time controls.
In computer chess people play as fast as 1 minute, but only because clicking is faster than moving a piece with your hand and pressing the button on a clock.
Chess programs only got to around 2600 rating by just brute-forcing analysis of lines. Magnus can crush a 2600 without much effort. They last longer than Gates, of course.
The reason chess computers are so strong is that there are a large number of human GrandMasters who work with the chess computer companies in order to identify and program the patterns that human players use. They also use various statistical techniques for the computer to identify known patterns and themes. Without all these advanced pattern techniques, the number of possible moves grows too fast for the computer to check all the lines. Doubling the computer power doesn't even give you a single additional move depth that you can brute-force, once you're past 14 half-moves or so. And 14 half-moves isn't deep enough to see all the traps a GM has waiting for you.
It is not like running, where the fasted human might only be twice as fast as the average. There are level after level of chess skill, and the very best humans are simply better than the best that computers can do without quality pattern recognition.
Computers do not actively study while playing. That would involve updating their databases. It would be rather pointless, but actually in a past computer chess scandal, a team was accused of having had humans update the computer during the match. So that is the actual situation where the computer is "studying" during the game. But no, the computers finish building their databases long before a game starts. All they do after the game starts is the same thing the human does; recall various patterns, past games, etc., and calculate lines.
It might be really shocking to the average human the type of memory top GMs have. They might glance at your move, and they instantly know that the move was never played in a published game, but that GM So-and-so evaluated the move in his analysis of another game between Foo and Bar, where a different move was actually made.
Even a State Champion level chess player you can probably name an opponent and a tournament that they played in 5 years ago, and they can just reach down to the board and show you the whole game, with no pauses to think, and explaining the competing themes.
The average "genius" human who didn't learn chess as a child and has only casual experience is going to get mauled, quickly, by an average human who grew up playing. That is just the nature of chess. Intelligence helps, memory helps more, but formal lessons from an early age helps the most.
Magnus has all three, and is higher rated than any other human in history.
Mine is almost that old and takes over 90 seconds to actually boil water. How warm is microwave-warmed water? Also, if I full a soup mug with water, it would take over 3 minutes to boil.
So we don't know how much water there is, or how warm "heated" is. As a chess player I have to say, this tactic is a total fail. There is no objective way to evaluate if the water is more or less warm than they claim.
It is like one of those chess compositions with no board annotations, where it is possible for the pieces to be going either direction.
Yeah, this is no different than Americans traveling to Northern Ireland in the past, and having their finances examined when they get back to check if they gave money to terrorists. I say that as a Celtic-American with Irish Republican sympathies. I can imagine being on either side of this sort of issue, in the right circumstances. My country should check me out if I come back from a conflict region. That is simple and practical.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably, and you can answer this better than I can, most US pilots have at least simulator experience flying head-to-head against allied pilots who had different training. Plus, they have lots of co-workers with extensive combat experience.
I'm guessing that is not the case for many pilots from other countries than our allies. Obviously the Russians and Chinese will be well trained, but perhaps won't have access to the experience, and won't have trusted allies with experience and state of the art simulators.
LOL that is a truly hilarious picture. "Ha! That'll show them, I just flew to Iran!" "Hey George, I think you're off course a little bit." "Uhhhhhh... I'll be in the restroom...."
All the drones have remote pilots, they're just using autopilot most of the time, and controlling more than one aircraft at a time.
[citation required]
I'm only a class player, but it isn't just that it makes sense. That is part of it. But even where it makes sense, most strong players can't remember thousands of lines 15 or 20 moves deep.
My best tournament game ever, a win against 2150+ player in standard time controls, was a Budapest Gambit where my opponent made a weak early queen exchange on d6, after which I slowly punished him, won a pawn, and the game. I understand the themes. I understand the game. If you played out the moves, I can explain each move. But I could not just reach down and make all the moves cold. I could memorize a few games like that if I tried; but certainly not a random one of my games from month, much less last year.
My friend is 2300 rated. He can recite most of the games he ever played. And he doesn't actually have a good memory compared to most people his rating; he wins via tactics. Many of the 2200 players at the tournaments have a much better memory than him.
Players over 2700 ("Super-GMs") generally are familiar with all or nearly all the games played by the other 2700s their whole careers, plus thousands of historic games, and thousands of 2600-level games with significant openings. Plus they memorize large numbers of lines that haven't been played, because they have to in order to play at that level. They have to have prepared surprises for all their opponents, because their opponents do too.
Tanks of that era needed infantry for protection, or they were easily destroyed by... infantry.
Seriously, paying engineers from one of the best engineering schools in the world significantly less than you pay teachers is just ridiculous.
And not true.
We know how, there are just not very many who bother. On the "knowing how" metric we're one of the top in the world. Only a few bored backwaters with nothing to do beat us, like Armenia or Iceland.
Geeks today aren't what they used to be.
The user quality has certainly eroded, as has everything else around here.
Even the grits have deteriorated.
No, just another Waterfall variant.
That is the old days
They have direct access, it is different than getting a copy in their email.
Well, a pet rock has more internet security than a computer.
Why do you think that a multi-parallel system cannot study and play in "real time".
Because I am familiar with the code and so I know that they "do not" study and play at the same time. I did not say that they "cannot." They are not programmed to do so, and if they were, it would be considered cheating. And the time it was accused, there was a clear line between altering the program, and running the program.
Biggest in what way? Okay, it wasn't biggest using the metric you used, but that doesn't prove anything. Maybe it was biggest by having the biggest consequences in the future? Maybe it did, or didn't, but you don't establish anything at all with your argument. All you have are some bare assertions.
Revisionist is going back and saying that what happened that mattered didn't matter unless the people doing it knew the future and exactly how it would matter.
Gates didn't know the future, but he knew he wanted a deal, not that had the biggest cash payouts, but that made people count on his company, that made his company the one with platform lock. I'm of the opinion that it was the biggest deal, the most important deal, because of how harmful it was to the industry in the future. But like it or not, claiming that MS establishing platform lock wasn't a huge deal... that's just daft. And revisionist.
That's not true, the old MS-BASIC (pre-DOS) was quality software. It left out lots of features you would have wanted, but managed to get a working BASIC onto a tiny ROM that was appropriate for early personal computers. A lot of people didn't think you could get a high level language into that small a space and still have it be useful. As a child I used various computers that had those ROMs, or copycats. It was important work that pushed computing forwards.
Their early spreadsheets were also very good.
It is likely that Gates was a better software developer than the programmers he hired, and that he stopped writing code entirely long before the IBM deal, to focus on business.
Yeah, if he had played carefully and lost slowly, this wouldn't even be a headline.
Gates makes more money than Magnus Carlsen, but I suspect that right now Carlsen, who just won the World Chess Championship, and has a side job as a model, could command higher rates for promotional appearances.
Even attempting to negotiate a higher fee would be a waste of Gates' time.
Yep. We should also stop running foot races, because, well, trains.
I'm at better than the 90% percentile in rated chess (in the US), and I'd get mated in 71 seconds too, or else more likely just flag after 2 minutes. The format is a joke; even with 5 minutes, it is well known that a club player like me needs more time than that just to walk through the basics and not blunder. With a rating difference, less time hurts the lower rated player. And 2 minutes is the fastest possible to play, and is much faster than most players ever play, including in casual games. 3 minutes is the fastest you'll normally see at a chess club, and even that is too fast for most of the players who like blitz. Normally at a chess club there will be people playing 5 minute, and others playing much longer time controls.
In computer chess people play as fast as 1 minute, but only because clicking is faster than moving a piece with your hand and pressing the button on a clock.
Chess programs only got to around 2600 rating by just brute-forcing analysis of lines. Magnus can crush a 2600 without much effort. They last longer than Gates, of course.
The reason chess computers are so strong is that there are a large number of human GrandMasters who work with the chess computer companies in order to identify and program the patterns that human players use. They also use various statistical techniques for the computer to identify known patterns and themes. Without all these advanced pattern techniques, the number of possible moves grows too fast for the computer to check all the lines. Doubling the computer power doesn't even give you a single additional move depth that you can brute-force, once you're past 14 half-moves or so. And 14 half-moves isn't deep enough to see all the traps a GM has waiting for you.
It is not like running, where the fasted human might only be twice as fast as the average. There are level after level of chess skill, and the very best humans are simply better than the best that computers can do without quality pattern recognition.
Your point is from, like, 1986 or something.
Computers do not actively study while playing. That would involve updating their databases. It would be rather pointless, but actually in a past computer chess scandal, a team was accused of having had humans update the computer during the match. So that is the actual situation where the computer is "studying" during the game. But no, the computers finish building their databases long before a game starts. All they do after the game starts is the same thing the human does; recall various patterns, past games, etc., and calculate lines.
It might be really shocking to the average human the type of memory top GMs have. They might glance at your move, and they instantly know that the move was never played in a published game, but that GM So-and-so evaluated the move in his analysis of another game between Foo and Bar, where a different move was actually made.
Even a State Champion level chess player you can probably name an opponent and a tournament that they played in 5 years ago, and they can just reach down to the board and show you the whole game, with no pauses to think, and explaining the competing themes.
The average "genius" human who didn't learn chess as a child and has only casual experience is going to get mauled, quickly, by an average human who grew up playing. That is just the nature of chess. Intelligence helps, memory helps more, but formal lessons from an early age helps the most.
Magnus has all three, and is higher rated than any other human in history.
Yeah, even my Timex/Sinclair 2000 booted faster than that.
Mine is almost that old and takes over 90 seconds to actually boil water. How warm is microwave-warmed water? Also, if I full a soup mug with water, it would take over 3 minutes to boil.
So we don't know how much water there is, or how warm "heated" is. As a chess player I have to say, this tactic is a total fail. There is no objective way to evaluate if the water is more or less warm than they claim.
It is like one of those chess compositions with no board annotations, where it is possible for the pieces to be going either direction.
Yeah, this is no different than Americans traveling to Northern Ireland in the past, and having their finances examined when they get back to check if they gave money to terrorists.
I say that as a Celtic-American with Irish Republican sympathies. I can imagine being on either side of this sort of issue, in the right circumstances. My country should check me out if I come back from a conflict region. That is simple and practical.
Sorry, but I'm not sure your English is good enough for me to take seriously you telling me what British citizens do or do not detest.