|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 39 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-24-05 | | Ulhumbrus: <lostemperor> Here is a question : is it possible now to get reproductions of paintings by old masters printed using not ordinary printing ink, but the same pigments that the old masters would have used? One could, in that case, buy a Mona Lisa or night watch as good as the original, made by a machine linked to a computer database. |
|
Jun-24-05
 | | lostemperor: Every piece of painting is unique like a signature (but I think eventually theoretically it is possible, although perhaps not quite exactly). But STILL a computer can never make a Rembrandt or van Gogh if that is what you mean. I don't think I live to see the day that a computer can even write a simple novel. But not every chesscombination or chessmove (even in a new position) is unique. |
|
| Jun-24-05 | | tud: This game is a jewel. Capablanca style. If anyone could get 5 moves in advance how fast the finish comes, it is a considerably good player. |
|
| Jun-24-05 | | Ulhumbrus: <lostemperor> No, I meant to ask whether a printing machine could produce an eaxct duplicate of the original, but using, in place of the normal printing ink , the pigments that the masters would have used. |
|
| Jun-24-05 | | Ulhumbrus: <lostemperor> in place of my "eaxct" in the previous message read "exact" |
|
Jun-25-05
| | lostemperor: <Ulhumbrus> With the technique and the speed of Hydra today, no it is not possible yet. |
|
| Jun-25-05 | | Ulhumbrus: <lost emperor> No, I am not asking whether a machine can paint an original work of art, I am asking whether a printing machine can reproduce a COPY or FACSIMILE of a work, but using the original pigments in place of printing inks, and on canvas like the original canvas, instead of on paper |
|
Jun-25-05
| | lostemperor: I did understand your question and that was my answer. Not possible (yet), since a painting has perhaps a million kind of paint colormix from the three main colors alone, red, yellow and blue. |
|
| Jun-25-05 | | Dionyseus: <LostEmperor> You said that a photograph is not called art. I believe you're wrong, isn't professional photography an art? I mean, there's the art of bird photography, the art of wedding photography, the art of family portraits, etc. |
|
| Jun-25-05 | | Anastasia: if its of me naked its art |
|
| Jun-25-05 | | Montreal1666: <Anastasia:> How do we know that you are actually a girl? |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | likestofork: Guys, girls, whatever.....I think you're trying to confuse art with pornography. Not that there's anything wrong with that....<montreal1666> I believe at one point Fischer said something about chess being "nothing more than mental masturbation". Just bear that in mind, so to speak. |
|
| Jun-26-05 | | Elvis in Chicago: Maybe the mistake was that Adams was playing to win, when he should have been playing to draw. I think if they pick another GM, they mind find someone who can draw a few games. I hope these people don't do what they did with Deep Blue, and just run away with their quickie victory. |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | Anastasia: <Montreal1666 <Anastasia:> How do we know that you are actually a girl?> im sending u a used tampon, hope that helps
xoxo stasia |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | Montreal1666: <Anastasia:> That will do. Are you sending it by e-mail? |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | supertimchan: Hydra vs rest of the world would be interesting. |
|
Jun-30-05
| | lostemperor: <Dionyseus> that was excactly what I was saying. A camera is not able to make art. The photographer does. Like a brush cannot make art but the painter using it does. A computer also doesn't make art. It only does what it has been told. <ulhumbrus> thinking about it, it would be theoretically possible to use paint instead of ink. But to make such a printer would be too costly. Besides it should be a paintingmachine not a printer. And what you get will be a reproduction and you will see the difference with the original painting. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | Nezhmetdinov: Chess has never ben an art - it is merely the highest and purest example of human competition - I hate the bloody computers but we have lived to see the sporting equivalent of mapping the DNA spiral. The 64 squares are still the same near-infinite universe to the player. Still: it is a shame - but this is an astonishing thrashing such as few have ever handed down to a no. 7 in the world... I hope Mickey recovers from it, he hasn't been in the best of form anyway, and now this.... I shudder to think. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | aw1988: To say chess is not an art is the height of ignorance. |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | korger: <This week I read of a painting auctioned for $20,000. It was a painting made by a monkey. It seems that a chimpansee had made about 400 paintings then.> Reminds me of an old spoof made by a notorious joker (can't recall his name, unfortunately).
Our fellow got increasingly exasparated by the direction that contemporary art took in the 20th century, and to justify his opinion, made a donkey (not a monkey) to paint a picture. He tied the donkey to a post where it could graze nonchalantly, and set up a canvas and several buckets of paint near the donkey's rear. In the grazing process, the donkey of course kept brandishing its tail, which sometimes hit the paint, sometimes the canvas. Sure enough, after a couple of hours, a painting was born! <Now that is art!>
This is exactly what the jury of an art exhibition said about the donkey's painting, after our frolicsome bloke
presented the painting there as his own work. It even won some prize! Then the fellow revealed the secrets of its creation, making fun of all the critics around. <A human can make art, an animal too, but not a computer.> I'm afraid, you're either very philistine, or just not consistent with your term of "art." In what way is a computer inferior to a donkey's tail?
These stories show how liberal is our interpretation of "art." If a monkey and a donkey can create art, then surely a computer, in which hundreds of programmers have poured all of their ingenuity, can do it as well. In fact, there are many AI programs that paint pictures in various styles. I've seen a couple, and they look none the worse than the works of many contemporary artists. <But it can be called an art. The art of the programmers who made it with the help of technology.> The artistic content of anything ought to be judged by its own merits, regardless how it was created. But I agree that whenever a computer produces great achievements, the credit is due to the people who designed that computer. A computer of our age does nothing else than what it's been programmed to do! |
|
Jul-01-05
| | lostemperor: Well the donkey wasn't actually painting was he/she? But the monkey, who is dead now, was, so it said. |
|
| Jul-07-05 | | csmath: Let's put this game up a little bit, this is the best game on this web site for the June 2005. Remarkable positional masterpiece with fast and stunning tactical execution. |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | patzer2: Hydra's strange looking 26. Ra6!! sets up the surprise demolition of pawn structure combination, which follows after 27. Rd6! and 28. Bxh6! An expanded analysis with Fritz 8 follows:
<26. Ra6!! Qb7> (26... Rc7
27. Rd6 Qc8 28. Nxh6+ gxh6 29. Bxh6 Be7 30. Qf3 dxe4 31. Qg3+ Ng4 32. Rxe4 f5
33. Rg6+ Kf7 34. Rgxg4 fxg4 35. Qxe5 Bf6 36. Qh5+ Kg8 37. Rxg4+ Rg7 38. Qd5+
Rff7 39. Bxg7 Bxg7 40. Rxc4 Qb8 41. b4  ) <27. Rd6! Be7> (27... Re8 28. exd5 e4 29. Bxh6 gxh6 30. Qd4 ; 27... dxe4 28. Bxh6 gxh6 29. Qc1 ) <28. Bxh6! 1-0> and Adams resigned. However, play might have continued 28...gxh6 29. Qf3 Nxe4 30. Rxh6 Rc6 31. Qh5 Bf6 32. Rxe4 dxe4 33. Qg4+ Bg5 34. Qxg5+ Rg6 35. Qh5 Rxh6 36. Nxh6+ Kg7 37. Nf5+ Kf6 38. Qh6+ Kxf5 39. g4# 1-0 |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | patzer2: <Chess has never been an art - it is merely the highest and purest example of human competition> Now there are two broad generalizations (i.e. Chess is not art, but Chess is the highest and purest example of human competition). Whether Chess is an art, I suppose, depends on your definition of the term "art." My Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate Dictionary defines the term "art" in the broadest sense as "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation." And certainly Chess, at least from a human perspective, meets that criteria. However, Webster's also has a narrower definition of art, to distinguish it from a skill alone, as "the conscious use of skill and creative immagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects."
In distinguisning the terms "skill and art," Webster's goes on to state "skill stresses technical knowledge and proficiency," while "art
implies a personal, unalyzable creative power." And perhaps in that narrow sense, one might argue (though I would not personally agree) that Chess is a skill rather than an art. As to the second generalization (i.e. Chess is the highest and purest example of human competition), I have two observations. First, I would suggest this premise is at least partly and perhaps totally subjective. For example, one might argue that athletic contests (i.e. soccer, baseball, basketball or football) requiring a combination of mental ability, teamwork and physical skills are the "highest and purest" examples of human competition. Secondly, I would suggest that a competition that does not require "unalyzable human creativity" may not be the "highest and purest" form of human competition.
Indeed, by that critieria (i.e. a contest requiring "unalyzable human creativity"), one might argue that the competition to produce and sell works of art (i.e. books, music, plays, movies etc.) is a "higher and purer" from of human competition. |
|
| Jul-12-05 | | patzer2: here is an analysis using Fritz 8 and the ChessGames.com Opening Explorer: <1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. d4 Bg4 10. d5 Na5 11. Bc2 c6 12. h3 Bc8 13. dxc6 Qc7 14. Nbd2 Qxc6 15. Nf1 Be6> Up to this point, it is pretty much an Opening Book line. <16. Ng5!?> This is somewhat of a novelty, only being previously played for a single draw, in the ChessGames.com Opening explorer, after Black's reply
of 16...Bc8 in Tringov vs V Ciocaltea, 1968. <16...Bd8> White appears to secure a clear advantage after 16... Nc4 17. Nxe6 fxe6 18. a4 Nb6
19. axb5 axb5 20. Rxa8 Rxa8 21. Bd3 Nc4 22. Qe2 Ra2 23. Ne3 Nxe3 24. Bxe3 Nxe4 25. Bxb5 Qc8 26. Qc4 Qxc4 27. Bxc4 Rxb2 28. Bc1 Rb1 29. Bd3 Rxc1 30. Rxc1 Bg5 31. Rc2 Nc5 32. Bb5  , but Black may be able to survive for a draw in spite of being the exchange down. Perhaps Black can attain an equal position after 16... Bc8 17. Ne3 h6 18. Nd5 Re8 19. Nf3 Be6 20. Qd3 Nc4 21. b3 Nb6 22. Nxe7+ Rxe7 23. Rd1 Rd7 =. <17. Ne3 Bd7?!> Perhaps the second Bishop retreat gives White a bit too much tempo to come up with a a winning combination. Black might have
done better with 17... h6 18. Nxe6 fxe6 19. Ng4 Bb6 20. Rf1 Rac8 21. Qe2 Rc7 22. Bd3 Nxg4 23. Qxg4 Rf6 =. <18. a4 h6 19. Nf3 Rc8 20. axb5 axb5 21. Nh4 Nc4 22. Nxc4 bxc4 23. Ba4 Qc7 24. Bxd7 Qxd7 25. Nf5!> Could it be that Hydra had already calculated the potential winning sacrifice this early? <25...d5 26. Ra6!!> White appears to already have a forced win at this point. <26...Qb7> A good try that seems to just fall short for Black is 26... Rc7 27. Rd6 Qc8 28. Nxh6+ gxh6 29. Bxh6 Be7 30. Qf3 dxe4 31. Qg3+ Ng4 32. Rxe4 f5 33. Rg6+ Kf7 34. Rgxg4 fxg4 35. Qxe5 Bf6 36. Qh5+ Kg8 37. Rxg4+ Rg7 38. Qd5+
Rff7 39. Bxg7 Bxg7 40. Rxc4 Qb8 41. b4 . <27. Rd6! Be7>
Not much help for Black is 27... Re8 28. exd5 e4 29. Bxh6 gxh6 30. Qd4 .
Also failing is 27... dxe4 28. Bxh6 gxh6 29. Qc1 . <28. Bxh6! 1-0> After this demolition of pawn structure sacrifice on h6, Adams
realizes he is busted and resigns. However, play could have continued
28...gxh6 29. Qf3 Nxe4 30. Rxh6 Rc6 31. Qh5 Bf6 32. Rxe4 dxe4 33. Qg4+ Bg5
34. Qxg5+ Rg6 35. Qh5 Rxh6 36. Nxh6+ Kg7 37. Nf5+ Kf6 38. Qh6+ Kxf5 39. g4# 1-0 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 39 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
