Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 19:25:17 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 07:15:59, Joe Besogn wrote: >Christophe Theron's Gambit Tiger, through its results, forced the forces of >computer chess conservatism (led by Dr Bob Hyatt) to defend their world view. >It is unfortunate that much of the 'defence' has to be carried out in zero-sum >mode. As the old paradigm is weakened, the conservatives are less and less able >to point to their achievements, and more and more resort to defending themselves >by attacking their revolutionary opponents. You have called this 'belittling' or >'humiliating'. They can only believe that a 'hit' on the new ideas, or on an >individual that stands for the new ideas, or on an artifact produced by the new >thought, is a corresponding 'gain' for them. >However, GT is an anomoly to the system. CSTal was an anomoly to the system. >Botwinnik was an anomoly to the system. :-))) >The system fights each one of these in turn: >They said: Botwinnik has no program and is a fraud. Therefore the idea doesn't >work. We don't need to consider it. We can carry on as usual. that was mean. i would like to know if botvinnik heard of this insult and maybe got a heart-attack afterwards. they jumped on his body. he was still alive. and on the funural they gave their best to get at least some little shine of his fame by calling themselves his friends and him a great honorable man although they gave botvinnik the rest ! really mean IMO. >They said: CSTal is a program but its win/loss rate is not enough and its >programmer is a trouble-maker. Therefore the idea doesn't work. We don't need to >consider it. We can carry on as usual. right. they always try to save the system. not to make it changed. >They say: GT is a program, its win/loss rate is unclear but close, it is not >much different to our program. Therefore if it works, it is our idea, because we >own computer chess and all ideas in it. We can carry on as usual. :-)))) right. they fight because GT is a danger. like cstal and pioneer would have been their main danger. what a pity. fighting new ideas because they are different. and maybe undetermine their power. they don't want to away their power. >>That's maybe indeed a way to detect new things. The establishement is indeed >>always very afraid of new ideas, and especially when they are strong. >> >Yes. It was necessary for the new idea to be represented in a way that could be >quantised by their system of measurement (win/loss rate). Well done. Only then >would they begin to see the anomolies in their system of thought. counting. quantifying. thats their world. the only way they can handle it. thats the reason we don't see more programs beeing different. But people fight this point of view. i know that steen suurballe and also ed and many others work hard to change "the system". >They had to have the ground removed from under their feet before they saw it. It >is not clear even now that they see it. we can wait. >No amount of telling them, for years and years, made any difference. The >paradigms were on different planets, and only now do they, some of them, see it. >You would think eminent professors would lead such profound changes, but instead >they appear to do everything they can to hinder them. thats the sad thing. THEY HAVE TO SUPPORT those ideas. in theory. but in fact: they stop the development. what a pity. >To return to your question: >>What you are actually saying here is that Bob is the guy who has helped us to >>notice that Gambit Tiger a new paradigm? >There is a new paradigm, because developers have changed their thought in >revolutionary ways. Old ideas have been turned on their heads (most obviously >the drive-into-the-fog idea vs. q-search). right. >This shift in thought could have been assimilated relatively painlessly, it >would still have been seen as revolutionary, and it will lead to revolutionary >new artifacts and further normal-science developments from now on - because it >is now becoming normal-science (despite some kicking still from the >conservatives). right. strange becomes normal and vice versa. long hair - short hair. >Bob's resistance over several years has made it a very tortuous process, the >resistance held back computer chess development by 3-4 years imo, and his >resistance increases the scale and importance of the revolutionary idea. That's >something he will have to deal with for himself. but we also have to thank bob for all the work he has done. without bob and his kind of ideology new paradigm could not have been developed. he is the antiforce the new force has to fight against. he is as much important as all the others IMO. the police without the criminals would make no sense. but it's time for a change. how was this called when mandela came out of prison and many other "criminals" have been set free ? a shift ? for how many years did the white men - a minority, controlled the majority in south-africa ? we need rehabilitation !
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.