Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:20:44 02/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 09:08:03, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 10, 2003 at 07:42:06, Albert Silver wrote: > >>>I'm having trouble following this thread. Would someone, other than the >>>principals in this discussion, please explain what in the world they're talking >>>about? >> >>Bob mentioned that he knows of GMs that have played lines or moves they had not >>thoroughly investigated themselves, relying on analysis others had provided. >>Rolf claimed this couldn't be true and started arguing why it couldn't be true. >>I gave some examples of past giants and then of some I personally know of. Rolf >>is still insistent so it is clear that whatever one says he will stick to his >>belief. So be it. > >No, wait a second, I have a minor correction. Not belief but scientifical >knowledge sounds better, Albert. While your alleged examples should be called >delusions. > >Al, >let's keep our peace with that. I think that I know now what Bob had in mind >when he said that. He gave a good description here the other day. It was during >a tournament comp & human, among them also experts and I don't recall exactly >also a master. And fact was that a prog had a defect book and at least one >player repeated without further thoughts the line in question. But this is not a >good example for our little debate here. As to your examples I raised the >necessary objections. In a serious game a GM simply can't do that also if from >the outside it might look as such. > >In science I can affirme you, such questions are daily job. > >Here the final hint. Of course my "thesis" was not a theory. Because by simply >asking a GM to do it you could refutate the thesis. If it would have been meant >this way! But it never was. I had thought that the term "drunken" had excluded >such speculations. So, to be clear, a sound GM would never play a _serious_ game >like that. And I am sure that you know that very well. Before you could debate >such questions one must always look carefully at the given or implied >definitions. In fact MOST debates suffer from being aware of this context. That >is normal. No reason to get excited. By chance I'm an expert of such questions >so that might have disturbed you because of prejudices from rgcc. I have no bad >feelings to you, but a bit of humour should be allowed. > >Moral: A smart one can fake being dumb, but a dumb could never fake smartness. > >Rolf Tueschen > > >> >> Albert Well, I thought I understood until reading the above. I'm completely lost again. : ( Maybe all GMs should be shot and all chess engine programmers burned at the stake. Meanwhile, all chess engine book makers should be regarded as the source of all chess evil. Seriously, chess engines programmers will use opening books forever and GMs will do much the same. The pursuit of TNs sets GMs above the book makers, but it does not have to always be that way. The book makers could rise up to that level too, or at least try. [But maybe this is irrelevant to the debate of this thread?] It is best to know what one can change and what one cannot. Why debate the impossible? Just as "boys will be boys," GMs will be GMs and chess programmers will be chess programmers. Similarly, "opening books are among the toys of big boys." Nothing changes. Sorry if I missed the thrust of the thread. : ( Bob D.
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.