Author: Lar Mader
Date: 17:31:28 05/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2005 at 12:15:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 05, 2005 at 05:01:00, Walter Faxon wrote: > >>On May 04, 2005 at 20:40:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 30, 2005 at 01:11:59, Walter Faxon wrote: >>> >>>>*** Or human. What this illustrates is that resignation should be eliminated >>>>from chess and all decisive games played out to checkmate. After all, even >>>>grandmasters can screw up completely won positions, and they sometimes do. >>>> >>>>No dignity in graceful acknowledgment of your opponent's better play, no; you >>>>must fight to the bitter end! >>>> >>>>Is your team allowed to "resign" when down 0-6 with one minute to play in >>>>soccer? No! >>>> >>>>Of course, this extra wasted effort would increase the odds in favor of the >>>>tireless machines. >>>> >>>>-- Walter :) >>> >>>What you are saying reveils very good the lack of class in computerchess. It's >>>as if chess would be raped. Chess is a gentleman's sport. You don't understand >>>why chessplayers give up in lost positions. They do so, because they both agree >>>in a gentleman's logic. If- they say - we BOTH continue to play like good >>>chessplayers, and we say that we are both good ones, THEN the result of the game >>>is clear after all what we know of this game - and we agree that we know enough >>>that the position itself doesn't hold any surprises. We do completely neglect >>>that one of us or even both would make silly mistakes which would in fact change >>>the expected result. We are both gentlemen and nobody wants to win games through >>>silliness if the position is clear. That is at least what gentlemen are saying. >>> >>>But computerchess people seem to miss that important point. Their logic always >>>goes like that: if by chance our opponent - who has a won position and the >>>machine can see it - becomes silly we have avoided a shameful loss. These people >>>don't even know that it's more shameful how they are behaving... >>> >>>NB that I'm not talking about ALL computerchess people. Bob for instance is a >>>symbol for that gentleman's attitude when he's well aware of politeness in >>>matches between his machine and human chessplayers. Bob is NOT a maniac who's >>>collecting points that he hasn't earned to win. That is why it's a real mystery >>>why Bob is defending hsu and team... >>> >>>My idea is that Bob stands a friend above a gentleman. But this not my ethical >>>base. A friend who made some mistake is STILL a friend, but then you are allowed >>>to criticise him, just because he's your friend and you are his friend. Perhaps >>>this is too European for Americans. >> >> >> >>Dr. Tueschen, > >Please dont call me MP or President! Thanks. > > >> >>The little smiley following my signature ":)" indicates an attempt at humor; in >>this case, irony. I was responding to your suggestion (in subsequently snipped >>text) that because Kasparov resigned in a position were he in fact had a >>difficult forced draw, the game should be effectively re-scored as a draw, >>presumably because that would be the "scientific" result. > >Yes, you are a very successful comedian. > > >> >>Here's a bit of science: > >And a scientist of great reputation! > > >>In every decisive game of chess, subsequent analysis >>can often pinpoint the loser's final fatal mistake. Kasparov's mistake was in >>resigning. His resigning was a legal move, and it cost him the game! >> >>If he could take back that move, why not allow him to take back any move, take >>back the whole game, or the whole match? >> >>Why not? Because that is not how chess is played. And the most important >>aspect of the "science" in this human-computer chess match (as in all such >>matches) was in the actual result of the match. > >And your point would be what? I for one did never speak about taking back the >moves... You perhaps missed that. > > > >> >>Yes, including all the silly mistakes. Which computers make too. >> >>----- >> >>By-the-by, re the "gentleman's" sport of chess: In a serious game, have you >>ever heard of a human grandmaster refusing an opponent's resignation? Never? I >>guess it is because they all "lack class". Have you ever seen a human >>grandmaster continue in a clearly lost position, trying to "swindle" the >>opponent? Anyone who does that must want to "rape" chess. Shameful! > >You also show a great class of sarcasm. But you are NOT talking about what I >have written. Don't mind, you have all the right to write what you want, but >please don't pretend that you are talking to me. Thanks. > >BTW I agree with you that swindle is part of the game in chess, in special among >amateurs and coffeehouse gamblers. > > >> >>I'm just glad they don't do those kinds of things in Europe. >> >>-- Walter > >We have a lot of coffeehouses in Europe. Please dont be too surprised that I >can't address your fine irony because of weaknesses in my English. I'm a German >and if you could write something in German one day I will respond with a similar >irony in my mother's language. But it's well possible that I won't do that out >of simple politeness. Because I don't like to swindle. I'm not a gambler so to >speak, excuse me. Actually, he was addressing your arguments very directly. You continually try to claim that game 2 shouldn't really have been a loss because Kasparov made a mistake. The example of "taking back moves" isn't the point. The point is that chessplayers make mistakes. Including Kasparov. And this is part of chess. You seem to think that in this particular chess match this part of chess shouldn't have been included. Strange. Somehow science shouldn't allow for mistakes, or something. Additionally, you continually claim that the Hsu or IBM or some part of that team swindled Kasparov, and he directly addresses your falacy that this is not part of grandmaster chess. These are very much your points, and he is clearly very much speaking to them. You simply don't like to address any concrete arguments, but simply keep repeating yourself over and over and over again. It is, frankly, getting old. People still get sucked into these posts because they can't imagine that anyone can so willfully ignore obvious reasoning. But you have made it clear that you can't be reasoned with. -= Lar
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.