Editblack

Grammar

In Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov, you changed

While there were eventually reasonable arguments that Kasparov could have won over the primitive brute force-based Deep Blue if Kasparov had played up to his level, more sophisticated chess programs soon decisively outmatched humans and the Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov match is still cited as the symbolic turning point.

to

While there were eventually reasonable arguments that Kasparov could have won over the primitive brute force-based Deep Blue, if Kasparov had played up to his level. More sophisticated chess programs soon decisively outmatched humans, and the Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov match is still cited as the symbolic turning point.

This is wrong, since "While there were eventually reasonable arguments that Kasparov could have won over the primitive brute force-based Deep Blue, if Kasparov had played up to his level." is not an English sentence. Maybe you aren't a native English speaker? I can assure you that is not correct. Your attempt at a grammatical correction turned a long but valid sentence into a non-sentence followed by a sentence. Quale (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I don't doubt that the sentence can be improved, but splitting it in half into a non-sentence and a sentence is not an improvement. Quale (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Read up on English grammar. You don't appear to be well conversant of it.Editblack (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you are simply wrong. If you think that "While there were eventually reasonable arguments that Kasparov could have won over the primitive brute force-based Deep Blue, if Kasparov had played up to his level." (your text) is a good English sentence, then I don't think there's anything I can say to you. "There were eventually reasonable arguments that Kasparov could have won over the primitive brute force-based Deep Blue, if Kasparov had played up to his level." is fine, but adding "While ..." to the beginning makes it not work. If you don't see this, then you are the one who is not conversant with English grammar.

I responded to your inquiry about sources and accuracy on my talk. That is an important concern. Quale (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I did finally take a look at the citations, and the paragraph about the "AI effect" might be true, but it wasn't supported by the given citations so I removed it. (BTW, the sentence wasn't a comma splice: "... an example of the so-called "AI effect", the observation that a computer can solve a problem causes the problem-solving involved to be classified as not true intelligence." The phrase after the comma is the definition of "AI effect" or a description of it. This is slightly tricky, but it is grammatical and your introduction of "and" changed and spoiled the meaning of the sentence.) Also I took out the long essayish sentence that you repeatedly mangled. It was true, but it was not supported directly by the given sources. It was inessential and long and somewhat hard to understand, so I think removing it is better. Quale (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Noone claimed that to be a sentence except for you. If you want to make an edit, then you should ensure that you are right.Editblack (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)