Now I'm using the work printers to print out the PDFs of some chess book. Pachman has some interesting comments about computers and chess which are interesting now, since they were published in 1978. He essentially says that computers will never be successful because they are incapable of playing strategically, as basic principles are only capable of taking you so far (say, to third-category strength) and the rest of the what separates the rank amateur from the master is knowledge of the exceptions to the rules which are gained from experience in playing and analyzing concrete examples. This is interesting for two reasons: first, it turns out he's wrong, computers can become phenomenally strong even though there are some things they don't do as well as humans (especially that area); second, later writers like Watson knock Pachman and previous writers of strategy manuals because they don't seem to teach about such exceptions. Clearly, though, the relation is a bit more complex. He is also completely and utterly incorrect about one thing: he says computers will never be good at concrete calculation of tactical variations because there are too many variations to look at and too many little exceptions to rules in them. However, it turns out that calculation of tactical variations is the only thing computers are good at. The tactical problems which he gives as examples of how a computer would fail in 1978 are now solved instantly and in a more accurate fashion than Pachman could manage (though I don't think he made any errors in his analysis).

Have the afternoon off for a couple $SPORTS games. It's like 15 degrees out, so should be nice.

Nobody is in the office today. I noticed a major problem with the executive summary reports we sent out yesterday, but it won't be a big deal. I fixed them and sent an e-mail somewhere, but it's already too late to get it fixed in time for the executive team meeting.