Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 18:16:59 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 18:30:18, Don Dailey wrote: >Hey, just relax a little. :-))) > I am simply being pragmatic and accurate. :-))) >Everyone knows chess is ultimately tactical and I'm just stating the >obvious. I was so near to jump into heaven, I called my friend bernd and told him how difficult it is to talk to programmers. Or materialists. No - it is not abvious. Chess is NOT full of tactics. > Since I consider myself to be a scientist I will always >collect facts and definitions and work within them. I find it >extremely useful to step away from the natural human definitions >you prefer and try to look at things from "outside" this. Human >biases often mislead. Aha. I normally talk with whales and dolphins. Also dogs. I am sure they play good chess. >In my post I called for new terminology. Bob just defined tactics >as sequences of moves that win material, and this is the classical >definition of it. He is completely correct. But I want to move >away from this definition because the definition is not strict, >it is open to interpretation. My point has several aspects: > Do you see my point? Have you ever tried to talk with chess-players ?! I think they can easily show you many many cases where your definition will get problems. >>> Really, the only thing that exists in chess >>>is won positions, drawn positions and lost positions. >> >>?? I would say, if you cannot calculate until the end (from the root) >>you will have to build superpositions of the 3 degrees too. > >Of course. Who said any different? Read your own sentence above ! You or whoever wrote it, claimed 3 categories. >You do not know what I will tell you here, and if I told you what you >expect me to, you do not know if this is right or wrong. You are >guessing. Right. > But in fact I do not know if a more human approach is >better or not. My intuition is that humans are different from >computers and that raises the possibility of a better approach, >perhaps not human at all but also like nothing we are currently >doing. I prefer to stay open minded about this and do not pretend >to know the right answer. I am prejudiced. I am human beeing ! >At one time the only "good" programs were brute force. People >tried to write selective ones but were not successful. I remember those times from MY point of view. My friend had a mark V and I had a mephisto2. Mark V had no change. But i liked the mark V more. I was very pleased that Thomas Nitsche and Elmar Henne changed into Mephisto III-strategy afterwards. And I was shocked when I saw the BRUTE-FORCE-module and Ulf Rathsmann in Cologne (or before). But this time is gone. > Finally >though, people hit on the null move assumption and suddenly >programs were playing more human like (with selectivity.) But >it seems now that people are viewing these programs as brute >force. At some point programs will be just like us and then >we will think we are stupid too! I don't think computers will ever learn to forget. And drink a good beer. Or kiss. Like us ! Or behave like idiots fighting words. Or senseless stuff like chess. And still be human beeings (hopefully) :-))) >A lot of these plans work against most humans. Right. But you maybe also see that people with EYES can more easy see the mess than machines without eyes. >- Don
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.