Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:12:14 02/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2004 at 11:00:24, Tord Romstad wrote: >Yes. I wonder why this is so difficult to understand for the majority of >computer chess enthusiasts. I sometimes get the impression that most people >just run comp-comp games between the top engines and calculate statistics >and Elo ratings, and never play against the engines or study their games. > >Tord i guess the reason of this conflict lies in a different point of view of reality. some people believe in a mechanical or classical paradigm. they believe if they make an event and xyz happens XYZ times than this is reality. they do not see themselves as part of the the event. they believe this would have happened without them. they believe e.g. you can play an EXACT move in a position. and that THIS move is the one and only. they do not understand that those EXACT moves are only a kind of GUESS within a rang n. They think like Tarrasch thought, not like Lasker thought. For lasker it was clear that the move is only good for this moment, for this opponent. Some people have this materialistic point of view of the world. they believe the things are mechanical. Its unbelievable but most of the time we argue not because of chess or computerchess but because we have different point of views, one could call this philosophies about the reality. this depends on the culture and the things you learned in your life. in my life i learned all about this philosophers, those ideas they had. about the difference between capablanca/tarrasch and lasker or Tal.
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.