July 29, 2001
12:56 PM Subscribe
There's cars, and then there's Ferrari. There's wine, and then there's Château Margaux. There's home computers, and then there's the Athlon Deathstar (picture). It's the computer for the best of us.
I'm not sure why you'd need all those speakers on a cluster.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:05 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:05 PM on July 29, 2001
The reason you need all the speakers is so you can hear the system beep over all the fans that much PeeCee hardware will require.
posted by kindall at 3:17 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by kindall at 3:17 PM on July 29, 2001
Tsk tsk. All those speakers and no bigmotherfuckingscreen™ monitor?
posted by DyRE at 5:03 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by DyRE at 5:03 PM on July 29, 2001
Speakers are certainly a lot cheaper than a big monitor. Though, as the owner of a fine set of Klipsch speakers, size matters little for home speakers.
posted by john at 5:27 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by john at 5:27 PM on July 29, 2001
It looks a lot more like Pontiac Firebird of computers rather than the Ferrari.... very tacky and unwieldy.
posted by gyc at 5:48 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by gyc at 5:48 PM on July 29, 2001
gee... all that raw computing horsepower and all he does with it is play solitaire
posted by mb01 at 5:57 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by mb01 at 5:57 PM on July 29, 2001
A computer only ever moves as fast as its slowest part. Not much point having all that processor power if there's a single bottleneck in the system.
posted by Neale at 8:46 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by Neale at 8:46 PM on July 29, 2001
Everyone knows IBM is the Galactic Empire of computer hardware, what with ASCI White now up and running, and Blue Gene right around the corner... peta-yum.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:50 PM on July 29, 2001
posted by techgnollogic at 10:50 PM on July 29, 2001
Neale, it depends on what you're doing. If your typical demanding application doesn't use your slowest component then your slowest component won't affect performance. Some tasks use some parts of the system much more heavily than others.
It's clear that the Deathstar is intended for gaming, so if it had relatively slow disk drives that wouldn't matter. Equally, the lack of a second monitor is unimportant for such an application. On the other hand, you'd want a blazingly fast display card and the fastest CPU you can possibly cram in, enough RAM (but no need for more than 256M) and a decent sound card plus the best sound reproduction you could get (hence the speakers). If he's got a GeForce3 in there (which seems likely) than I don't see any weak components at all for his most typical stressful application.
One doesn't build a system like this to run Photoshop.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:49 PM on July 29, 2001
It's clear that the Deathstar is intended for gaming, so if it had relatively slow disk drives that wouldn't matter. Equally, the lack of a second monitor is unimportant for such an application. On the other hand, you'd want a blazingly fast display card and the fastest CPU you can possibly cram in, enough RAM (but no need for more than 256M) and a decent sound card plus the best sound reproduction you could get (hence the speakers). If he's got a GeForce3 in there (which seems likely) than I don't see any weak components at all for his most typical stressful application.
One doesn't build a system like this to run Photoshop.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:49 PM on July 29, 2001
He needs one of the SGI projector systems...
Actually, what he really needs is one of these!
posted by stew560 at 6:02 AM on July 30, 2001
Actually, what he really needs is one of these!
posted by stew560 at 6:02 AM on July 30, 2001
The level of wanking in this thread is starting to make me ill. Although it really does go to show that the only thing that drives PC hardware evolution is gaming.
posted by darukaru at 9:17 AM on July 30, 2001
posted by darukaru at 9:17 AM on July 30, 2001
A hundred bucks says the guy that owns this system is a virgin. Any takers? Any? None? Ok.
posted by mathowie at 10:05 AM on July 30, 2001
posted by mathowie at 10:05 AM on July 30, 2001
I'll disagree with SdB. The only conceivable reason to spend that much money on a system is for a heavy-duty productivity application like Photoshop. That might pay for the system within a couple months. Let's say you spend $10,000 on this rig. And suppose you value your gaming highly, say at ten cents per hour. (It really should be valued at zero or lower, since time spent playing games is of absolutely no value whatsoever to you or to anyone else, but division by zero's undefined, and if you value your gaming negatively you wouldn't do it, so we'll give it a nominal value.) That gives you a ROI of 100,000 hours for this thing. Even assuming you play on the system eight hours a day every day, you'll have to play it for over 34 years to get your money's worth.
posted by kindall at 11:02 AM on July 30, 2001
posted by kindall at 11:02 AM on July 30, 2001
From the design of that site, and the non-style of its name, I find it hard to believe that it's photoshop this guy is running. Another conceivable reason is that this is the computer equivalent of audiophiles and car tricker-outters.
posted by skyline at 11:21 AM on July 30, 2001
posted by skyline at 11:21 AM on July 30, 2001
Kindall, since when was any hobby cost-effective?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:28 AM on July 30, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:28 AM on July 30, 2001
Kindall, I completely disagree with the criteria you use to determine "money's worth." Not all value can be measured in dollars and cents--in fact, dollars and cents were invented as a method of approximating a measure of value that was relatively (very relatively, as it turns out) objective and consensual.
In practice, there is often a tremendous discrepancy between a thing's fiscal valuation and the amount of pleasure it may bring an individual. And that, it seems to me, is a much more meaningful measure of value.
posted by rushmc at 11:42 AM on July 30, 2001
In practice, there is often a tremendous discrepancy between a thing's fiscal valuation and the amount of pleasure it may bring an individual. And that, it seems to me, is a much more meaningful measure of value.
posted by rushmc at 11:42 AM on July 30, 2001
There are smart hobbies and stupid hobbies. If you knit, you end up with something you can wear. If you collect stamps, you learn about other cultures and people. What do you end up with after playing video games for thirty-four years? A collection of memories and reflexes that are of no use whatsoever outside of the game you acquired them in. You have learned nothing. You have accomplished nothing. You have made nothing. All you have done is masturbated your cerebral cortex to a series of impotent braingasms. You are a rat with a wire to his pleasure center, pushing the joystick again and again because it feels sooooo goooood.
The opportunity cost of gaming is so high -- you could be doing so many other things with that time, almost any one of which would be marginally more useful to you, to society, to the planet. Hell, even carrying out the garbage would at least locally reduce entropy! This guy has the money to buy more computing power than existed in the entire world a couple generations ago, and all he can think of to do with it is jack off. That is about the saddest thing I can imagine.
posted by kindall at 11:57 AM on July 30, 2001
The opportunity cost of gaming is so high -- you could be doing so many other things with that time, almost any one of which would be marginally more useful to you, to society, to the planet. Hell, even carrying out the garbage would at least locally reduce entropy! This guy has the money to buy more computing power than existed in the entire world a couple generations ago, and all he can think of to do with it is jack off. That is about the saddest thing I can imagine.
posted by kindall at 11:57 AM on July 30, 2001
I love my stupid hobbies. Probably even more so now. Nothing like pretentious pissing on a another man's interests to polarize him against your petty prejudices.
posted by john at 12:09 PM on July 30, 2001
posted by john at 12:09 PM on July 30, 2001
Kindall, I hope you aren't arguing against wasting time. If this guy really really likes playing games; who cares? It's all a matter of degree, anyway. What if I buy a nice chess set and play with it for hours every day? Are you going to smack me down, too? Think of all the mittens I could be knitting in the time I'm playing that pointless game!!!
posted by daveadams at 12:13 PM on July 30, 2001
posted by daveadams at 12:13 PM on July 30, 2001
There are smart hobbies and stupid hobbies. If you knit, you end up with something you can wear. If you collect stamps, you learn about other cultures and people. What do you end up with after visiting Metafilter for two years? A collection of memories and reflexes that are of no use whatsoever outside of the online environment in which you acquired them in. You have learned nothing. You have accomplished nothing. You have made nothing. All you have done is masturbated your cerebral cortex to a series of impotent braingasms. You are a rat with a wire to his pleasure center, pushing the keyboard again and again because it feels sooooo goooood.
posted by cCranium at 12:15 PM on July 30, 2001
posted by cCranium at 12:15 PM on July 30, 2001
You presuppose a great deal, Kindall. That learning about other cultures and people has intrinsic value (which I would agree with, as it happens, but it represents an unsupported presupposition nonetheless). That producing amateurish, low-tech apparel is somehow superior to purchasing manufactured products (never mind the ratio of time spent on each avenue, which would greatly favor purchasing, even taking into account the amount of time spent earning the money to buy it with). Mostly what you are suggesting is that only YOUR values are worthy of consideration or adoption. (Hell, if you collect stamps, what you mostly learn about other cultures and people is what stamps they print/use. Snore.)
Many modern video games, on the other hand, require the development of certain skills: cognitive (puzzle-solving, analytical, strategizing), physical (reflexes, timing, sensory), and social (cooperation, interaction, team-building). It ain't all Pong anymore. (Of course Sturgeon's Law applies here as everywhere: 90% of EVERYTHING is drek.)
More importantly, you are stimulating your imagination in a participatory manner, unlike the passive doping of the television addict. Anything which provokes a creative involvement with and consideration of larger possibilities than are apparent in base existence is a good thing. Would you argue that reading a novel in your armchair was masturbation? How about writing one, one of the most solitary pursuits of all? If the average videogame is less sophisticated/stimulating/rewarding than the average novel (a VERY debatable contention), it seems to me that that says more about the infancy of the genre than anything else.
I don't play that many videogames, but I do play some. And I have seen the practical and "moral" requirements of a game's society convert an obnoxious, poorly socialized brat into a polite, fun person whom others embrace and enjoy. Being as it seems reasonable to assume that some of these lessons will translate to "RL," I would say that constitutes a far greater service to society and the planet than licking any number of stamp holders.
posted by rushmc at 12:19 PM on July 30, 2001
Many modern video games, on the other hand, require the development of certain skills: cognitive (puzzle-solving, analytical, strategizing), physical (reflexes, timing, sensory), and social (cooperation, interaction, team-building). It ain't all Pong anymore. (Of course Sturgeon's Law applies here as everywhere: 90% of EVERYTHING is drek.)
More importantly, you are stimulating your imagination in a participatory manner, unlike the passive doping of the television addict. Anything which provokes a creative involvement with and consideration of larger possibilities than are apparent in base existence is a good thing. Would you argue that reading a novel in your armchair was masturbation? How about writing one, one of the most solitary pursuits of all? If the average videogame is less sophisticated/stimulating/rewarding than the average novel (a VERY debatable contention), it seems to me that that says more about the infancy of the genre than anything else.
I don't play that many videogames, but I do play some. And I have seen the practical and "moral" requirements of a game's society convert an obnoxious, poorly socialized brat into a polite, fun person whom others embrace and enjoy. Being as it seems reasonable to assume that some of these lessons will translate to "RL," I would say that constitutes a far greater service to society and the planet than licking any number of stamp holders.
posted by rushmc at 12:19 PM on July 30, 2001
Wow, Kindall, you're so right! What the heck have I been thinking this whole time? Desperately trying to escape from the grim reality of capitalism and everyday monotony with a joyous romp in a fantasy land. There is no escape and I will have no joy! It would be a poor assumption to think that you must work on computers for a living, but that's what I do and that's all I know how to do. The ability to communicate from person to person aside, the internet is 95 percent entertainment. So what have I been doing for the last 2 years other than providing entertainment? Apparently nothing. If you want to draw attention to the important contributions you've made to society, do it in a more constructive manner.
I'm going to go jack off now.
posted by metasak at 12:22 PM on July 30, 2001
I'm going to go jack off now.
posted by metasak at 12:22 PM on July 30, 2001
I'm not talking about chess, I'm talking about computer games, and a particular type of them. You know this guy's not going to play computer chess on that thing, or for that matter, Myst or the Sims or wussy shit like that. Not to put too fine a point on it, he bought that monstrosity in order to pretend to kill. It's called THE DEATHSTAR! If you think a killing-people-simulator is a worthwhile thing to spend an entire shitload of money on, well, fine. I happen to think it's worthy of derision and ridicule. I won't quite go so far as to call it dangerous, but it's surely a stupid waste of money.
I'm not going to bitch too much if you occasionally kill simulated people on a computer you also use for other, more useful things, because yes, everyone needs to waste some time now and again and this can be a great way to blow off steam, and let's face it, we all sometimes feel like killing something. But Jesus Christ, let's try to get a handle on the concept of moderation! This guy spent thousands of dollars building something specifically so he could get off on the endorphin rush of killing, without actually needing to grow the balls to face the risks that ordinarily go with the rush. He obviously intends to do a hell of a lot of simulated killing and he clearly wants the experience to be as realistic as technology currently allows. I'm sorry, but that's beyond a mere "hobby." It verges on pathology.
Sure, the guy has the right to spend his money on anything he wants. And I have the right to call him a wanker.
posted by kindall at 12:38 PM on July 30, 2001
I'm not going to bitch too much if you occasionally kill simulated people on a computer you also use for other, more useful things, because yes, everyone needs to waste some time now and again and this can be a great way to blow off steam, and let's face it, we all sometimes feel like killing something. But Jesus Christ, let's try to get a handle on the concept of moderation! This guy spent thousands of dollars building something specifically so he could get off on the endorphin rush of killing, without actually needing to grow the balls to face the risks that ordinarily go with the rush. He obviously intends to do a hell of a lot of simulated killing and he clearly wants the experience to be as realistic as technology currently allows. I'm sorry, but that's beyond a mere "hobby." It verges on pathology.
Sure, the guy has the right to spend his money on anything he wants. And I have the right to call him a wanker.
posted by kindall at 12:38 PM on July 30, 2001
I have the right to call him a wanker.
Yes, yes you do. However, you do not have the right to call me "a rat with a wire to his pleasure center, pushing the joystick again and again because it feels sooooo goooood." because I spend time and money playing video games.
At least, you don't have the right to call me names without me responding.
If you want to call him and just him a wired-up rat, stop speaking in generalisations please.
posted by cCranium at 12:50 PM on July 30, 2001
Yes, yes you do. However, you do not have the right to call me "a rat with a wire to his pleasure center, pushing the joystick again and again because it feels sooooo goooood." because I spend time and money playing video games.
At least, you don't have the right to call me names without me responding.
If you want to call him and just him a wired-up rat, stop speaking in generalisations please.
posted by cCranium at 12:50 PM on July 30, 2001
To clarify further, since I agree I was overly general: The games I'm talking about are the most popular genre, the ones where the point of the game is to kill and destroy (depicted as realistically as possible), and the people who bother me are those who enjoy these sorts of games entirely too much. I won't even try to draw a line as to how much is "too much," but I think I can safely say that anyone who would build a system like the Athlon Deathstar specifically to play games of this sort is on the "too much" side of any reasonable line you might care to draw.
posted by kindall at 1:09 PM on July 30, 2001
posted by kindall at 1:09 PM on July 30, 2001
I'm not talking about chess, I'm talking about computer games...
psst...your bias is showing...
posted by rushmc at 1:18 PM on July 30, 2001
psst...your bias is showing...
posted by rushmc at 1:18 PM on July 30, 2001
I'm afraid we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this, Kindall, because quite honestly if I had the discretionary funds I'd have a 10ft (at least!) screen and a projection system and a high-end surround sound and a very comfortable chair attached to the most insanely powerful computer I could put together.
And I'd brag about it on the Internet, too.
posted by cCranium at 1:18 PM on July 30, 2001
And I'd brag about it on the Internet, too.
posted by cCranium at 1:18 PM on July 30, 2001
This guy spent thousands of dollars building something specifically so he could get off on the endorphin rush of killing, without actually needing to grow the balls to face the risks that ordinarily go with the rush.
A rush is a rush (ahem), and personally I am EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that if this is indeed his driving motivation (which assumption I think is quite a stretch), that he seeks to gratify it in this simulated manner rather than engaging in actual, real-world testicular homicide.
posted by rushmc at 1:21 PM on July 30, 2001
A rush is a rush (ahem), and personally I am EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that if this is indeed his driving motivation (which assumption I think is quite a stretch), that he seeks to gratify it in this simulated manner rather than engaging in actual, real-world testicular homicide.
posted by rushmc at 1:21 PM on July 30, 2001
I'm not talking about chess, I'm talking about computer games...
psst...your bias is showing...
Are you seriously proposing that there's no qualitative difference at all between a game of strategy that has endured for centuries and a genre of entertainment where individual titles are essentially fads with a shelf-life of six months to a year? I can't even name all the games that have been published in the last five years. If I thought I'd be around to collect, I'd bet you good money that not one of them will be played 500 years from now. But chess will. You don't think that makes chess inherently superior to every computer game yet published? The test of time is practically the only objective test we have of the worth of a cultural artifact. I'd be interested to hear what criteria you use to make such appraisals of value.
I am EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that if this is indeed his driving motivation (which assumption I think is quite a stretch), that he seeks to gratify it in this simulated manner rather than engaging in actual, real-world testicular homicide.
That's one way to look at it, true. Another way to look at it is that the games are desensitizing him to violence and death and breaking down his natural inhibitions toward playing out these scenarios in real life. (This is not currently a popular view, and not one I have any particular affinity to, but there is some evidence for it.) A third way to look at it is that if there were no such games, the guy probably would get his rush jumping out of airplanes or something, and would lose nothing.
posted by kindall at 1:45 PM on July 30, 2001
psst...your bias is showing...
Are you seriously proposing that there's no qualitative difference at all between a game of strategy that has endured for centuries and a genre of entertainment where individual titles are essentially fads with a shelf-life of six months to a year? I can't even name all the games that have been published in the last five years. If I thought I'd be around to collect, I'd bet you good money that not one of them will be played 500 years from now. But chess will. You don't think that makes chess inherently superior to every computer game yet published? The test of time is practically the only objective test we have of the worth of a cultural artifact. I'd be interested to hear what criteria you use to make such appraisals of value.
I am EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that if this is indeed his driving motivation (which assumption I think is quite a stretch), that he seeks to gratify it in this simulated manner rather than engaging in actual, real-world testicular homicide.
That's one way to look at it, true. Another way to look at it is that the games are desensitizing him to violence and death and breaking down his natural inhibitions toward playing out these scenarios in real life. (This is not currently a popular view, and not one I have any particular affinity to, but there is some evidence for it.) A third way to look at it is that if there were no such games, the guy probably would get his rush jumping out of airplanes or something, and would lose nothing.
posted by kindall at 1:45 PM on July 30, 2001
I'd bet you good money that not one of them will be played 500 years from now. But chess will. You don't think that makes chess inherently superior to every computer game yet published?
No, because the salient games 500 years from now will be descendents of today's computer games, not chess. If chess is around (far from certain, given its feudal, warfare-based underpinnings, which may not be relevant in 2500 society), it will be as a curiosity, much like Minesweeper currently existing on all Windows machines but not being in any way representative of today's most popular, challenge, or cutting-edge games.
posted by rushmc at 1:56 PM on July 30, 2001
No, because the salient games 500 years from now will be descendents of today's computer games, not chess. If chess is around (far from certain, given its feudal, warfare-based underpinnings, which may not be relevant in 2500 society), it will be as a curiosity, much like Minesweeper currently existing on all Windows machines but not being in any way representative of today's most popular, challenge, or cutting-edge games.
posted by rushmc at 1:56 PM on July 30, 2001
Another way to look at it is that the games are desensitizing him to violence and death and breaking down his natural inhibitions toward playing out these scenarios in real life.
They could just as easily teach him important lessons about violence, death and consequence, without having to send him over to the next village to slaughter a bunch of folks as has been traditional in human society. The fact that they currently probably fit your description a lot more closely than mine is merely a failure of existing game design.
But one must learn to walk before one can run.
posted by rushmc at 2:01 PM on July 30, 2001
They could just as easily teach him important lessons about violence, death and consequence, without having to send him over to the next village to slaughter a bunch of folks as has been traditional in human society. The fact that they currently probably fit your description a lot more closely than mine is merely a failure of existing game design.
But one must learn to walk before one can run.
posted by rushmc at 2:01 PM on July 30, 2001
desensitizing him to violence
Oh please, what a cop out. I'll just let you know that the most popular online 1st person 3D is Counter-strike a mod of a game that came (half-life) out a few years ago. The reason that it's popular is that is rewards skill and teamwork. Anyone that is not entirely dependant on their reptilian brain can handle video game violence. The evidence you suggest is likely based the crap studies done recently. They offer excuses for the actions of maniacs. Another thing to point at for a culture that covets victims. There is no breaking down of inhibitions. That's an insulting insinuation. It suggests that after a few years every cop should be a raging criminal.
I'll forgive you your generalizations, but you obviously have no clue about video games. Comparing Chess to video games is like holding up a book to the movie version. They are two different things. There are a number of games that require a host of skills more varied and complex than Chess.
posted by john at 2:07 PM on July 30, 2001
Oh please, what a cop out. I'll just let you know that the most popular online 1st person 3D is Counter-strike a mod of a game that came (half-life) out a few years ago. The reason that it's popular is that is rewards skill and teamwork. Anyone that is not entirely dependant on their reptilian brain can handle video game violence. The evidence you suggest is likely based the crap studies done recently. They offer excuses for the actions of maniacs. Another thing to point at for a culture that covets victims. There is no breaking down of inhibitions. That's an insulting insinuation. It suggests that after a few years every cop should be a raging criminal.
I'll forgive you your generalizations, but you obviously have no clue about video games. Comparing Chess to video games is like holding up a book to the movie version. They are two different things. There are a number of games that require a host of skills more varied and complex than Chess.
posted by john at 2:07 PM on July 30, 2001
It suggests that after a few years every cop should be a raging criminal.
um...I agree with the points you make, but given the sensationalization of law enforcement brutes and bullies on programs like Cops, you might choose a better analogy...
:::wink:::
posted by rushmc at 2:15 PM on July 30, 2001
um...I agree with the points you make, but given the sensationalization of law enforcement brutes and bullies on programs like Cops, you might choose a better analogy...
:::wink:::
posted by rushmc at 2:15 PM on July 30, 2001
Oh please, what a cop out.
I said that the violence-desensitization angle another way to look at it. I also said it was not a way of looking at it that I particularly agreed with, although as I noted I've heard some evidence to support it. And, in fact, as any long-time cop can tell you, you do get desensitized to violence in that line of work. But that's really neither here nor there. In moderation, it is probably harmless.
There are a number of games that require a host of skills more varied and complex than Chess.
The skillsets are of course different and not directly comparable, but I do not know of any computer game that requires a lifetime to master, or which has sufficient depth to still offer rewards even after a lifetime of play. Somehow, I doubt Garry Kasparov would be very impressed by the skills that Counterstrike players have learned.
posted by kindall at 3:06 PM on July 30, 2001
I said that the violence-desensitization angle another way to look at it. I also said it was not a way of looking at it that I particularly agreed with, although as I noted I've heard some evidence to support it. And, in fact, as any long-time cop can tell you, you do get desensitized to violence in that line of work. But that's really neither here nor there. In moderation, it is probably harmless.
There are a number of games that require a host of skills more varied and complex than Chess.
The skillsets are of course different and not directly comparable, but I do not know of any computer game that requires a lifetime to master, or which has sufficient depth to still offer rewards even after a lifetime of play. Somehow, I doubt Garry Kasparov would be very impressed by the skills that Counterstrike players have learned.
posted by kindall at 3:06 PM on July 30, 2001
Somehow, I doubt Garry Kasparov would be very impressed by the skills that Counterstrike players have learned.
And yet, you expect us to necessarily be impressed with the skills that Garry Kasparov has learned?
It could be equally argued that the particular subset of skills cultivated to excel at chess are about as useful in other areas of life as, say, those affiliated with stamp collecting.
posted by rushmc at 3:15 PM on July 30, 2001
And yet, you expect us to necessarily be impressed with the skills that Garry Kasparov has learned?
It could be equally argued that the particular subset of skills cultivated to excel at chess are about as useful in other areas of life as, say, those affiliated with stamp collecting.
posted by rushmc at 3:15 PM on July 30, 2001
It could be equally argued that the particular subset of skills cultivated to
excel at chess are about as useful in other areas of life as, say, those
affiliated with stamp collecting.
Not really. The introduction of chess programs in schools has had the effect of raising academic achievement. In addition, many GM's, unable to make a decent living playing chess in the U.S., are doing quite well on Wall Street.
posted by gyc at 3:33 PM on July 30, 2001
excel at chess are about as useful in other areas of life as, say, those
affiliated with stamp collecting.
Not really. The introduction of chess programs in schools has had the effect of raising academic achievement. In addition, many GM's, unable to make a decent living playing chess in the U.S., are doing quite well on Wall Street.
posted by gyc at 3:33 PM on July 30, 2001
And yet, you expect us to necessarily be impressed with the skills that Garry Kasparov has learned?
It is an intellectual achievement that few others have matched. Chess is complicated. I mean, really complicated. The rules are fairly simple, but the emergent behavior of the system from these rules is quite chaotic and unpredictable. Even if you understand nothing else about the game, you can surely appreciate that Kasparov has mastered it, or come as close as any human being has so far, and that this is very very hard.
(The same would apply to the Chinese game of Go; it's far more complex than even chess, but I don't know the names of any Go masters and I suspect hardly anyone here would recognize the names if I referred to them.)
There are, to get back on topic, real reasons that the aristocracy has played and studied chess (and, in the East, Go) for centuries, beyond merely wanting to flaunt their elitist ways over the hoi polloi. The ability to think strategically in a very deep manner is in fact a very useful skill in real life.
I've yet to see a computer game that rivals the intellectual depth and staying power of chess. Nobody today plays, for instance, Archon, good though it was. And the first-person-shooter genre is generally not where you should look for your deep intellectual challenges in any case. Those games are about action. Any puzzles in such games are only there to enhance the excitement, and, by design, the challenges can't be too hard -- a game solvable only by geniuses is not very marketable, is it?
Today's computer games can, I'm sure, be enjoyable and engrossing, and that's fine. But nobody plays Counterstrike to maximize their intellectual potential. They play it for the fun, and any personal development that occurs is a bonus. I guess what it comes down to is that I'd like to see a world where more people aimed higher than mere entertainment more of the time.
posted by kindall at 4:22 PM on July 30, 2001
It is an intellectual achievement that few others have matched. Chess is complicated. I mean, really complicated. The rules are fairly simple, but the emergent behavior of the system from these rules is quite chaotic and unpredictable. Even if you understand nothing else about the game, you can surely appreciate that Kasparov has mastered it, or come as close as any human being has so far, and that this is very very hard.
(The same would apply to the Chinese game of Go; it's far more complex than even chess, but I don't know the names of any Go masters and I suspect hardly anyone here would recognize the names if I referred to them.)
There are, to get back on topic, real reasons that the aristocracy has played and studied chess (and, in the East, Go) for centuries, beyond merely wanting to flaunt their elitist ways over the hoi polloi. The ability to think strategically in a very deep manner is in fact a very useful skill in real life.
I've yet to see a computer game that rivals the intellectual depth and staying power of chess. Nobody today plays, for instance, Archon, good though it was. And the first-person-shooter genre is generally not where you should look for your deep intellectual challenges in any case. Those games are about action. Any puzzles in such games are only there to enhance the excitement, and, by design, the challenges can't be too hard -- a game solvable only by geniuses is not very marketable, is it?
Today's computer games can, I'm sure, be enjoyable and engrossing, and that's fine. But nobody plays Counterstrike to maximize their intellectual potential. They play it for the fun, and any personal development that occurs is a bonus. I guess what it comes down to is that I'd like to see a world where more people aimed higher than mere entertainment more of the time.
posted by kindall at 4:22 PM on July 30, 2001
The introduction of chess programs in schools has had the effect of raising academic achievement.
You're a long way from demonstrating a causal link between those correlated conditions.
posted by rushmc at 4:23 PM on July 30, 2001
You're a long way from demonstrating a causal link between those correlated conditions.
posted by rushmc at 4:23 PM on July 30, 2001
Even if you understand nothing else about the game,--in fact, I am familiar with both chess and Go, but nevermind--you can surely appreciate that Kasparov has mastered it, or come as close as any human being has so far, and that this is very very hard.
Granted...and so what? We were arguing NOT the decree of difficulty of a thing, but its inherent value. Something can be incredibly difficult yet still utterly pointless. Or anywhere else along the spectrum of perceived value, to oneself or society. And whatever its virtues (which can be debated), chess certainly does little to aid in social development (ask Bobby Fisher or any number of other similarly stunted grand masters).
a game solvable only by geniuses is not very marketable, is it?
No, which is no doubt why chess continues to sell so well after all this time, since in any given match (barring a draw) there is a winner, regardless of the intelligence or skill level of the two players.
posted by rushmc at 4:33 PM on July 30, 2001
Granted...and so what? We were arguing NOT the decree of difficulty of a thing, but its inherent value. Something can be incredibly difficult yet still utterly pointless. Or anywhere else along the spectrum of perceived value, to oneself or society. And whatever its virtues (which can be debated), chess certainly does little to aid in social development (ask Bobby Fisher or any number of other similarly stunted grand masters).
a game solvable only by geniuses is not very marketable, is it?
No, which is no doubt why chess continues to sell so well after all this time, since in any given match (barring a draw) there is a winner, regardless of the intelligence or skill level of the two players.
posted by rushmc at 4:33 PM on July 30, 2001
People have been working on trying to invent board games for nearly 3000 years, and have come up with maybe six really decent ones (and only one of those in the last century). They've only been creating computer games for forty years; give 'em time. It's a bit early yet to declare that no computer game will ever be able to have the same staying power that Chess, Go, Go-moku, Othello and Checkers have. Who can say what computer games will be like in a hundred years? Let alone 3000 years from now? We're only ten yards from the starting line at the Marathon. Why are you declaring a winner already?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 4:56 PM on July 30, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 4:56 PM on July 30, 2001
Just to back up a bit, concerning cops and violence. I say complaints about desensitizing are a cop out since I don't view it as a real problem in and of itself. The problem I have is the followup of "...breaking down his natural inhibitions toward playing out these scenarios in real life." That's something that happens on an individual basis and is known as a psychotic break. I have worked with and am friends with cops. Desensitization is survival. The day to day horrors require it. There are a LOT of cops in the world. Of course there are going to be bad ones. There are a lot of video game players in the world...
The complexity issue is moot. Poker can be just as hard to play. Garry Kasparov's opinion doesn't mean squat to me. I'll play what is fun at any given moment. That ranges from video games, card games, board games, outdoor games, to a simple walk in the park. I find playing the same game over and over again as interesting as listening to the same album endlessly. Is Garry special because he's a great Chess player or because he actually can tolerate playing and thinking about Chess as much as he does? But that feeds back into an earlier point on moderation. To that I'd say Garry needs some variety in his life.
Steve,
Personally, none of those board games interest me. The stayng power of those games don't make them endlessly fun. Maybe I just have a preference for the new.
posted by john at 5:12 PM on July 30, 2001
The complexity issue is moot. Poker can be just as hard to play. Garry Kasparov's opinion doesn't mean squat to me. I'll play what is fun at any given moment. That ranges from video games, card games, board games, outdoor games, to a simple walk in the park. I find playing the same game over and over again as interesting as listening to the same album endlessly. Is Garry special because he's a great Chess player or because he actually can tolerate playing and thinking about Chess as much as he does? But that feeds back into an earlier point on moderation. To that I'd say Garry needs some variety in his life.
Steve,
Personally, none of those board games interest me. The stayng power of those games don't make them endlessly fun. Maybe I just have a preference for the new.
posted by john at 5:12 PM on July 30, 2001
I guess my point was that mindless entertainment has its place, but there's such a thing as too much of it. I guess I'd really like to encourage people to aim higher, even in their recreation.
posted by kindall at 1:06 AM on July 31, 2001
posted by kindall at 1:06 AM on July 31, 2001
I guess I'd really like to encourage people to aim higher
That sounds noble, and most of us would no doubt echo the sentiment, but I'll bet no two of us would define "higher" in precisely the same way.
posted by rushmc at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2001
That sounds noble, and most of us would no doubt echo the sentiment, but I'll bet no two of us would define "higher" in precisely the same way.
posted by rushmc at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2001
Jeeze, this turned into a really interesting thread. I wish I'd been paying attention sooner. Random thoughts:
Somewhat equated playing video games with reading books. This is an especially interesting analogy, given the popularity of "Thrillers" and "True Crime" novels. My mother, for example, consumes those Patricia Cornwell and John Sandford novels like peanut M&Ms. I've read a few hand-me-downs, and they essentially consist of a mystery-ish "plot" that's nothing more than an excuse to string together lurid descriptions of serial murders and crime scenes. And have you read "Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine" recently? The stories that gajillions of charming ol' grannies are reading are no longer about Count Matthews slipping cyanide into someone's tea; now realistic descriptions of murder are the norm. So why are these tales so popular? Why, for the thrill, of course. Grandma is (to coin a phrase) getting off on the endorphin rush of killing, without actually needing to grow the balls to face the risks that ordinarily go with the rush. Are you ready to denounce her as well?
Hobbies are hobbies: you play violent video games, you read books, you travel the world, you climb mountains, you study history, you knit socks, you collect quarters, you run marathons -- in the end you wind up in a grave like everyone else, so you better do something you enjoy while you have the chance. I s'pose this guy could give up his video game player and channel his money and time into mountain climbing, but what would be the point? Is that hobby any better by any standard? And if not, where's your diatribe against mountain climbers?
Chess: Calling "chess" a great game is a pointless exercise unless you define your criteria for a great game. Is a game "great" if it sticks around for hundreds of years? Well, by that standard then okay, chess is great (although chess has evolved through the ages, so it's not as if the Romans were capturing En Passant). Or is a game great because it fosters self development? I learn a lot of stuff when I play Trivial Pursuit, even though I hate it. Or is a game great simply by virtue of being fun to play? By that standard, chess fails to meet the mark for me personally.
In a similar vein, someone commented that "People have been working on trying to invent board games for nearly 3000 years, and have come up with maybe six really decent ones (and only one of those in the last century)." Cough up your definition of "decent", please, and let us know if you've come to this conclusion after playing the astounding assortment of modern board games on the market. But now I am officially off-topic and will shut up.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:27 PM on July 31, 2001
Somewhat equated playing video games with reading books. This is an especially interesting analogy, given the popularity of "Thrillers" and "True Crime" novels. My mother, for example, consumes those Patricia Cornwell and John Sandford novels like peanut M&Ms. I've read a few hand-me-downs, and they essentially consist of a mystery-ish "plot" that's nothing more than an excuse to string together lurid descriptions of serial murders and crime scenes. And have you read "Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine" recently? The stories that gajillions of charming ol' grannies are reading are no longer about Count Matthews slipping cyanide into someone's tea; now realistic descriptions of murder are the norm. So why are these tales so popular? Why, for the thrill, of course. Grandma is (to coin a phrase) getting off on the endorphin rush of killing, without actually needing to grow the balls to face the risks that ordinarily go with the rush. Are you ready to denounce her as well?
Hobbies are hobbies: you play violent video games, you read books, you travel the world, you climb mountains, you study history, you knit socks, you collect quarters, you run marathons -- in the end you wind up in a grave like everyone else, so you better do something you enjoy while you have the chance. I s'pose this guy could give up his video game player and channel his money and time into mountain climbing, but what would be the point? Is that hobby any better by any standard? And if not, where's your diatribe against mountain climbers?
Chess: Calling "chess" a great game is a pointless exercise unless you define your criteria for a great game. Is a game "great" if it sticks around for hundreds of years? Well, by that standard then okay, chess is great (although chess has evolved through the ages, so it's not as if the Romans were capturing En Passant). Or is a game great because it fosters self development? I learn a lot of stuff when I play Trivial Pursuit, even though I hate it. Or is a game great simply by virtue of being fun to play? By that standard, chess fails to meet the mark for me personally.
In a similar vein, someone commented that "People have been working on trying to invent board games for nearly 3000 years, and have come up with maybe six really decent ones (and only one of those in the last century)." Cough up your definition of "decent", please, and let us know if you've come to this conclusion after playing the astounding assortment of modern board games on the market. But now I am officially off-topic and will shut up.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:27 PM on July 31, 2001
« Older 'If I didn't save this music no one else would' | Murder on Swan's Island Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:58 PM on July 29, 2001