Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:44:33 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 18:00:11, Albert Silver wrote: >>Your argument has more flaws. You write: Thats how WE advance. Fine! But a >>computer program has not won the status yet to become like US. > >Status? They must gain our _status_ to be allowed to use the same theory I learn >but had no part in building? > >>Your report about the Marshall has a top flaw. THe idea that the 30 years had >>anything to do with - comparable to science - a necessary advancing of chess >>knowledge. This however is false! It had nothing to do with such aspects. What >>it took was simply a player or analyst who was willing to put enough heart blood >>into the material. The whole analysis isn't complex enough to explain the 30 >>years! > >It just shows what clods humans can be. Not only did it take 30 years for >someone to get the idea of ...c6 but it was only because the fantastic idea of >9...d5! had already been show to them. You will say it's circles or a merry-go-round but I will prove you the fallacy in your perception. BTW I like your contributions more and more. Now, after having assumed that I had insulted you, what was not the case, you talk this way about other human beings. Justified or not, this is the question. I say no, not justified! Simply because you miss the most important point in chess. That's why we can't compare chess with science. Why? Because other than in science in chess nobody is forced to give away his secrets. He might wait decades before he opens his books... >Your theory that no one serious looked at >it for 30 years is one I do not believe in. Strange because you say that you are teaching chess... not looking but talking. > >>It's more so, that chessplayers often are like other human beings, they >>follow the mainstream. Real researchers are not so typical! > >You'd be surprised. There are games that have been analyzed and re-analyzed and >then re-analyzed yet again that contain the most appalling flaws at a basic >level. All by very serious analysts. I.E. to err IS human. > >Here is an ironic example for you, though I'll grant is a much older one. One of >my favorite chess books of all time, and one that I use consistently when >teaching chess is Richard Reti's masterpiece "Masters of the Chessboard". In an >early chapter he is showing a beautiful game by Adolf Anderssen (I could be >wrong about the spelling) but when he comes to the combination he seethingly >notes that all the commentators until then insisted on raving about the >perfection of the combination, when in fact there is a solution taking one less >move as he proceeded to show. One or two games later he shows another lovely >combination by the same player announcing a mate in 4. The deep irony is that I >found a shorter mate in 3. Mind you, although I found it on my own, it's quite >probable others found it too. > You bet! ;-) >>Now, after that having said, where is your argument pro books in computers? Do >>you want to doubt that computers won't find certain solutions? Or do you want >>to reclaim that perhaps in 30 years they could find it, so we should assume that >>the were able - in principal??? Here would follow a clear nay. Today there is >>still a very principal horizon problem. Period. > >As I said, I contend that had they known nothing about the openings they play, >there are MANY moves and lines top players would most likely not find on their >own. They are using and building on the knowledge of others. Yes, of course. But your first sentence is false. A GM will find what he wants to find. In principal! > >>>They don't compete, they are not animate. Competition is a concept of living >>>creatures. If I (and this is still ALL from those previous posts BTW) propose a >>>footrace between myself and an automatic motorcycle (just to remove the human >>>element), am I *competing* against it. On my end, perhaps, but the bike is >>>certainly not *competing* against me. It gets turned on and then shut off. >>>Computers are the same. > >>But here I fully agree. Well said. So, would you reject my ideas of a >>partication of comps in human tournaments? > >Like I said, computers don't compete, and human tournaments are human >*competitions*. A chess program can *perform* at a certain ELO level dictated by >its hardware and software, just as a motorcycle can achieve a speed in km/h much >like we can, but it will never be a competition, it will be a measurement. If >you wish to organize an event in order to evaluate that performance, that's >fine, but in a word, yes, I'm against the general participation of machines in >human competitions. You can take out its opening book, its tables, and make it >as weak as a kitten in chess, and it would change nothing. Computers don't >*compete*, and human tournaments are human *competitions*. > > Albert > >P.S. I said I won't redebate the other points, and I won't. I prefer debates >that don't remind me of a merry-go-round. (!) Albert, let's stop here, because you won't support computers in human chess tournaments anyway. Just spend a little thinking about those who can't compete themselves and who therefore would like that their machines would participate. It's always a question of dimensions, so to speak, perhaps I'm too far away in other dimensions, and therefore some few here think it should be enough. Perhaps I am too creative which often causes a lot of angst. Sigh. Rolf Tueschen P.S. I'm happy now.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.