Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 09:57:14 09/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2005 at 12:11:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >you gave a good description of friendship and happiness in chess tournaments >like AEGON but I fear it is because you are no expert in chess. you need the >direct conversation with operators and if possible with programmers. i need the conversation with operators or programmers because i am a human beeing. the operators and programmers of the other chess programs do need the same thing, btw. It has nothing to do with the level of chess. it has to do with the system of computerchess. the computers cannot listen to the analysis and the comments, they do not get annoyed by talks and conversations, they do not change their moves because of talks. human chess is boring for me because i am not interested which human made the last mistake in a game . i am especially not interested to watch a human beeing play 3 h a game without telling what he had in mind when making mistake xyz. with a chess program it is different. everything is open. that is the guaranty for much content. we had (in german television) in the 80ties lots of tv-games where the players commented their ideas WHILE playing. they had headsets and microphones. and the chessplayers in the room were for the first time able to listen why player A believes he is better. this was interesting, because one could SEE in the mind of a chess master. This is the interesting thing. normal human chess will never reach this goal and therefore dies out of the media. nobody is interested in watching to arrogant grandmasters sweating in a dark room without fresh air , and seeing ONE of them beeing very unhappy and even harsh when he loses. nobody is e.g. interested in watching a losing kasparov. thats what kills human chess forever. in computerchess it is different. even when stefan meyer kahlen loses with shredder, he is still a very high accepted social member of the group because of his social behaviour. they like him because he is NOT the type of guy kasparov is. computerchess is IMO better then human chess concerning the content. it gives more information. and makes chess more interesting. human chess is like a good movie without sound. a movie you cannot replay . a movie you cannot ask the actor WHY. a movie that is in a dark cinema, without fresh air, with sweating people next to you. that is human chess. computerchess is more attractive. > of course >this is impossible with real chess masters. what would we (I include myself) >possibly be talking about with such experts? the operators and programmers are >no chess experts themselves (with little exceptions as I know). Of course you >can talk with them about everything except chess. thats normal. its normal that people talk about all kind of things. > Real chess masters are artists >and sportsmen and -women. Why should they talk with you about their private life >if you are not one of them? thats normal. small talk is the usual typical thing humans do. the chess master will not talk about his moves. he is not interested in watching why he lost. operators and programmers always want to know why. thats the difference. computerchess is CONTENT. in human chess the why is off-topic. >I dont want to spoil your fun. It's a hobby like so many others. But you should >also tolerate the fun of people who come from chess into computerchess because >they want to enjoy the play against chess machines. You should see that for them >the mere testing engine vs engine has not the importance. these people would IMO not post here. they would use other forums. > Therefore I agree with >you that AEGON should be re-invented because it brought the fun with human vs >machine chess. Of course with the neccessary silence in the hall for the human >players. again you see that human chess STOPS us from having content. human chess is unattractive.
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.