Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:53:08 02/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 21:03:47, Bob Durrett wrote: >On February 09, 2003 at 20:50:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Computers play with books, right? >> >>Rolf always said that comps should NOT be allowed to play openings that they >>can't understand also after long thinking. Such lines should be banned from the >>books. >> >>Bob always said that GM played with the same principle. They use stuff from >>others, they didn't understand and they also do not check during game. >> >>Rolf said that this is absolute nosense. >> >>Now Albert & also Uri believe in what Bob said. >> >>Rolf asked for evidence. >> >>Albert gave example. Mecking - who he knew quite good - did exactly what Bob >>pretended. >> >>Rolf opposed. The thesis said that no dumb GM would exist who did that or he >>must be drunken. >> >>Albert was angry because he knew Mecking and Rolf refused to buy ear candles. >> >>Rolf stayed cool and defended Mecking who is a chess genius and eidetic, all >>that has consequences, Albert is not prepared to understand. Speed is a key >>term. GM analyse in a period of time no mortal could detect. But then mortals >>shouldn't claim that GM don't analyse at all... >> >>The rest is about language between Germany and Brazil. Rolf took revenge of the >>soccer final in Japan/Korea and won with 2-0. >> >>Uri did not yet confess. DJ is not a GM yet. Eduard is waiting. >> >>Rolf went into politics and brought peace to the World... >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >>Hope this helps, Bob II. >> >>Rolf > >Thanks for the "blow by blow" summary. > >I must admit I still don't know whether or not this is supposed to be a debate >about an ethical issue. For example: "Is it unethical for a chess engine to >use an opening book?" Is that "the bottom line" here????? No, that is wrong. The reason for the debate here is my (Rolf) proposal to remove parts of books that are only hiding the engine's weaknesses (=> topic impostering) in certain openings. Here Bob reacted with his ideosyncratic theory that "GM would also use material they have not researched or found on their own". As you know I expressed my serious doubts to such a delusion. Speaking about GM!! I'm not a clair voyant, I don't know what all GM do in ALL their games, but I know that the average observer has no chance to make conclusions (in the style of Albert) who imply that GM have made no analysis just because it didn't take several hours or days. I say that a GM has a repertoire and when he has a new line he can valuate it (often enough) on a fly. He needs no board in special. He needs no room or table. In fact a GM lives with chess and for chess. There is one strange case where GM talk about their own job ad talents. I say that up to now nobody told the truth. Nobody admits, yes I am eidetic ad I do it so and so. On the contrary, a player like Karpov [I brought that anecdote] ranted about his weak memory blabla. Know what I mean? To state it as clear as possible. Chess talents, BTW like all others who have this "talent" [it's inborn!] of eidetics, do not speak about it. Reason is IMO that THEN people might lose their admiration for a supernatural genius. For a scientist however a genius is NOT supernatural because he has very human talents. Rolf Tueschen > Incidentally, Bob H. >usually "fights tooth and nail" whenever the ethics of chess engines are >challenged. : ) > >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.