Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:53:58 02/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2003 at 05:18:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 10, 2003 at 21:20:44, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>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. : ( > >Moral: Without own reflections you can't understand. > >All what you wrote is correct. As long as boys are boys and GM GM, and as long >as they do what they do in their fields there is no problem! > >Now comes a new quality. The two fields meet each other. Not on a level of freak >shows or zoo visits. No, real tournament chess with progs' participation. > >At that moment you should know something about interdisciplinary >problem-solving. You must at first understand what is changed in tournament >chess. > >For 5 years now I am repeating myself that CC is ignoring the FIDE rules. And if >CC wants to participate in human chess tournaments certain changes should be >done. Everytime I have a discussion with CC people they say books are the same >what GM do. Here I agree, GM, yes, they have a "computer" memory in their brain. >So yes, they have not to fear these books because books are even worse because >they represent just the old knowledge, but GM have a repertoire for the next >weeks or years,depending on the opponents. > >But I say also the books are illegal because they contain lines NO comp could >understand (= play without disadvantages). So that is the crucial point. I am >NOT dreaming of a fictious fairness. That is simply a unfair trick in the debate >to insinuate something the opponent does not say or want. > >Now CC people seem to think that all what they do is ok and the human chess >players and their FIDE have a problem. They should find solutions! But that >exactly is ridiculous. Human chess has a tradition of 200 years and CC has >perhaps 20 years when a serious competition could be planned. I say, if CC >wanted to participate in human tournaments CC should do the homework and prepare >propositions. Both for books and table bases. > >Now what do you want to know? > >Rolf Tueschen I fear I really am getting senile, on the verge of having Alzheimer's disease. The fact that I cannot follow some of your arguments is my primary indication that I'm in serious trouble. : ( You say that the "critical point" is: "But I say also the books are illegal because they contain lines NO comp could understand (= play without disadvantages)." I simply do not understand. Could you please elaborate on this critical point? Bob D. > > > > > >> >>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.