Chess ... A Waste of Time

I'm just kidding, of course ... I was just looking for a post title that would stand out.

Interesting that IBM has supplied those logs ... I wonder if IBM supplied them prior to the production of that movie, or after? If before, then the makers of that movie either didn't know, or intentionally lied about that aspect of the controversy. It wouldn't be the first time a filmmaker had an agenda that clouded their sense of honesty and integrity.

* * *
Here's the question ... why was the move that Deep Blue made so "un-computer like?" Was it because it offered no calculated advantage? About Kasparov's expectation that Deep Blue would "grab a pawn with 37. Qb6" ... you added, "but such a move was not optimal." Why would it be "un-computer like" to see that taking the pawn would not be optimal? Was the sub-optimal nature of taking that pawn based on something that could be calculated (or computed), or was it something only human intuition could reasonably arrive at?

* * *
Something interesting:

Scientists at The University of Manchester have discovered a new class of materials which have previously only existed in science fiction films and books.

A team of British and Russian scientists led by Professor Geim have discovered a whole family of previously unknown materials, which are one atom thick and exhibit properties which scientists had never thought possible.

Not only are they ultra-thin, but depending on circumstances they can also be ultra-strong, highly-insulating or highly-conductive, offering a wide range of unique properties for space-age engineers and designers to choose from.

Professor Andre Geim said: "This discovery opens up practically infinite possibilities for applications which people have never even thought of yet. These materials are lightweight, strong and flexible, and there is a huge choice of them. This is not only about smart gadgets. Like polymers whose pervasiveness changed our everyday life forever, one-atom-thick materials could be used in a myriad of routine applications from clothing to computers."

* * *
You wrote:

I think cross speciation is a whole lot more possible than people think, gardeners know this, and the human genome isn't that much more complicated than a plants (surprisingly).

Three questions:

1. What constitutes a "specie?"
2. Does cross-breeding to produce polka-dot rose constitute a new specie?
3. Does human intervention in the cross-breeding of plants or animal offer "proof" of natural selection?

The author of that article was suggesting that evolution worked its way into geology not so much that biological evidence was contained therein, but that the theory of evolution applied to the changes we see in the geologic structure of the planet. The planet has changed over time, but that's a different thing from things changing due to genetic mutation and propagation of those mutations through reproductive advantage.

* * *
I agree that faith ultimately comes down to a choice, as opposed to scientific proof of something that leads one to logically arrive at it. But I do not agree that the realms of science and faith are separated entirely. You write of the theory of the "expanding and collapsing ball" as a way to get around the issue of "who started the Big Bang." That suggests that the universe "always was," and had no initial creation whatever. Fine. Then at best God -- if he exists at all -- is no better than co-equal to the universe, since by definition God didn't create it.

These are issues you and I will never, I suspect, come to an understanding on.

Peace.