The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1228 Friday, 20 June 2003
From: Claude Caspar <
Date: Thursday, 19 Jun 2003 10:33:02 -0400
Subject: 14.1213 Re: Crux Challenge
Comment: Re: SHK 14.1213 Re: Crux Challenge
>>. . . what you are seeing is rapid computing of all the factors, not
>>disregard of rational factors. A pro can calculate so quickly that even
>>he isn't aware he is doing it. When you can see the wheels turning, he
>>is off his game.
>This is very like what I tell my students about writing analytical
What seems to me confused is that it is one thing to compare a
calculation between man Vs machine on/of knowable factors (things that
all must agree are true), measurable, objective data and another
claiming that one's surmise based on intuition, which subsumes the
analytical, is similar and can be computed. Shakespeare had
imagination. Why poker can never be a science, but remains an art,
unfortunately, unlike chess.
Notice, not one person has suggested a computer analysis could supply a
missing word, a word worthy of Shakespeare. Machines don't coin words
spontaneously, break the [main]frame...
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.