Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 14:17:32 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 19:39:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 19:12:36, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On May 20, 2002 at 18:44:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>>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, >> >>I choose not to argue this ad nauseaum, but yes, you did, and on more than one >>occasion. > >Ok. Then it might have been in the hidance. But you never accused me before. You >stopped to debate many times but never because I had insulted you. At least you >didn't say so. But if it the case, then I feel sorry. I hope it didn't happen >last year or now. Perhaps you were insulted when I spoke about certain >hypotheses. Honestly I always expected that the whole topic wouldn't exist here. >Why did you never write me email about it? I didn't know that you felt so hurt. > >> >>>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... >> >>So when dozens of top players began playing it they had ALL been secretly >>holding onto ...c6 for 30 years. I say all because if only one player found it, >>then all others are only copying him. Since it was then played by many players, >>they must all have been keeping it a secret for some 30 years. Well.... some >>less since they weren't all 30 years-old yet. > >Just consider the different levels of players. Then you differentiate between >the different preferences of the best players. Then every day has 24 hours. You >can take for granted that that in the old days only the real top players did >thourough research. BTW what I read about the famous game of Botvinnik in >Huebner's commentary, proved even this to be wrong. Without a comp analyses were >not exactly fun. I have great respect for the study authors. No, chess isn't >science. > >> >>> >>>>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. >> >>I didn't understand what you meant with looking and not talking. > > >Looking but not talking about the results. > >> >> >>>>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! >> >>If you really believe that a GM could find all of theory on their own with no >>prior knowledge then I think you overestimate their ability somewhat. When a >>brilliant new move or line is discovered, it isn't because no one had seriously >>analyzed that position before the analyst who discovered it, it is simply >>because no one had the idea. > >Without prior knowledge, but GM? Ok, I would still say, yes, GM are able to do >it. As I said, it's not as if it were a national task suddenly to find the >solution of a problem. The MOTIVATION is the biggest factor. Once set on the >track a GM will find all solutions. Promissed. > > > > >> >> >>>(!) >>> >>>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. >> >>Ex: "Hi, I can't compete in this 5000 meter race myself, so is it ok if I have >>my automatic motorbike participate instead? I can set it to not go over 25 km/h >>if you like..." > >No, I think I have understood your thought. You see just the numbers. Know what >I see in these comps? The precursors of the first artificial race on earth. And >if you say, but you don't even program, then I say, yes, but isn't this an >interdisciplinary field, computerchess? > >Rolf Tueschen Just one link: http://www.simulation-argument.com/classic.html -Andrew- > > > >> >> Albert >> >>>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.