Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:25:39 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 09:12:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 26, 2002 at 05:21:07, José Carlos wrote: > >> Resignation is not a due, but a right. Tiviakov was nervous playing the >>computer, but he was wrong in his claim. >> As for the other players that didn't play, I understand them. > >We have here a clear problem. The concept of fairness must be discussed with the >computer side. A computer is not a human being, so he doenn't know ethics. So we >must find certain rules for the play against computers. We must also - against >your assumption! - find rules for the right to demand the machine's resignation, >yes. > >> That's a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the book, and >>it concerns, as I said, to the programmer (Bob in this case). > >With all due respect for the solidarity among programmers the problem does _not_ >concern programmers alone. The point is that computers with their programmers do >not belong to a club called The Untouchables. The side of human chess must have >access to the machine and if the programmers will forbid it, there won't be any >participation of computers in human chess tournaments. Easy one that one. > > >>>We have now a moment of highest interest. What you are saying with not the least >>>self-doubts is for me the highest and most trivial form of fallacy. >> >> >> Thank you for your nice comment. >> >> >>>BTW decades >>>after the debates in Atom physics. The simple rejection to your simple statement >> >> >> Oh, thanks again! >> >> >>>is this, no, it is not all allowed what a programmer is doing. And you know >>>yourself where the clue is in your argumentation. You said, if SSDF, if >>>tournaments, then strength. Yes, but fairness? >> >> >> What do you understand for "fairness"? Maybe we understand different things. >>Is it fair that your opponent is allowed to touch the pieces during the game and >>you aren't? >> >> >>>That is the most important factor >>>in sports. If you like it or not. It's the British who brought it into the >>>World. :) >>> >>>So, could you please modernize your argumentation included these points? >> >> >> Well, either I'm too stupid or you're too clever, but I have no idea why your >>"british fairness" refutes my argumentation, nor how your "british fairness" can >>be more modern than my arguments about computer programming. > >Yes, I understand. We have a real problem here. It's all about ethics. This is >very old in fact. Excuse me that I seem unable to follow you into modern >computer programming. Good luck then for the next "GM challenges" in PR. > >>>Yes, I agree. You found two rather uninteresting comparisons. >> >> >> Your constantly offensive words suggest you're running out of arguments. > >I see a different problem here and therefore I already closed the debate once. >Your interpretation of my words as offensive is itself insultive for me. But you >dodn't need a change of the rules or practices because you are happy with comp >vs comp and "GM challenges". Good luck for you and your program, José! > > >> >> >>>The most important >>>is however, what a computer player should be. What parts etc. >> >> >> Should be according to what? >> > >My patience for tolerating such communicative things is immense. > >(snipped) > >> Very interesting. >> >> José C. > >So far about 'running out of arguments'. Perhaps we could talk again in a less >heated moment. Thanks for many interesting arguments. > >Rolf Tueschen Well, now I finally understand what people say about your past. I'm sorry, I wanted to believe they were wrong. José C.
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.