Author: Roger
Date: 11:53:50 12/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
No need to overreact, Thorsten. ;) I wasn't suggesting that you go from one extreme to the other. Between the extreme of not posting ANY tournament results, and between the extreme of posting ALL tournament results, lies a middle ground of posting SOME of the tournament results, those not including CSTAL!!! So much for dualistic thinking. ;) You have been snared on your own words here. Now that you recognize the middle ground between these two evil dualistic extremes, feel free to post the tournament results without CSTAL. ;) ;) I don't think CSTAL actually NEEDS a database of old positions to be a good chess program. As I said, I own the DOS and Windows versions, and I like them. I accept the proposition that it plays attractive chess. What I was advocating was a test suite that would SHOW OFF THE GENIUS OF THE PROGRAM. Obviously, what makes CSTAL brilliant is that it chooses different moves than other programs. Otherwise, it'd be just another bean counter. In your experience with the program, you have seen it pull off some really incredible stuff. I was just suggesting that such exemplars of "attractive chess" could be formed into a test suite that operationalizes what humans expect attractive chess should be. Given your experience with CSTAL, this should not be difficult. Roger On December 19, 1999 at 12:28:13, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On December 19, 1999 at 00:15:54, Roger wrote: > > >>You are no going to change your mind, and that's fine. >>And I am not going to >>change mine. > >whatever you want. > >> I still don't think you should let Chris control what you post >>here, whether it is explicit, or through implicit loyalties. But so be it. In my >>opinion, he controls you. > >i am different opinion. i have fought my whole life not to >be controlled. > > >>You also continue to say that your reasons are objective, and then hide behind >>saying that you are going to do what you are going to do. I guess it doesn't get >>much more objective than that. ;) > >look. you are not the person to decide what is objective and what is subjective. >you play a word game. >there is no objective world out there. >and there is no subjective world in there. >these are dualistic words filled with nothing but the fact that >they are poles of opposition. >but in reality these dualistic bullshit that comes out of the left >brain (where your language is spoken out and your logic sits) >has no reality. >whats in your mind is only fantasy. the world outside >is not dualistic. it has more stages than beeing A or NOT (A). >so - don't try to fool people by claiming 1 stage out of 2, when there >are thousands stages in fact or infinite stages to solute this problem. >what you do is scholastic shit. >this is a word-philosophy with long tradition, in our days >heavily used by scientology and other fascistic organisations. >I would not try to do it if i where you. > > >>You also said I underestimated Chris. I am sure Chris is a very talented guy. I >>also think he must be incredibly insecure to protect himself through his license >>agreement. My opinion, of course. :) > >the license agreement stuff has its own history you cannot explain >in your dualistic 2 ways. >you try to split anything you talk about into 2 stages. >the right and the wrong. >and you claim that what you say is right and what others (chris) >do or say is wrong. > >this is the same again. you think always only in 2 categories. >this is a mechanistical way of thinking. a very european btw. too. >but this paradigm is old fashioned and is over. >its from the 19th century. beginning with the 20th century these >ideas have been replaced by einstein and later the quantum-physics >guys. >you still use them. > >how old are you ? > >>I also don't underestimate CSTAL. I own CSTAL for DOS and CSTAL II. I like the >>program. I don't doubt it can beat the world's best once in a while. > > > >>You had nothing to say to the last several paragraphs of my last post. I am sure >>that you have a large database of CSTAL games. Perhaps you could go through them >>and develop a CSTAL test suite composed of positions that demonstrate its >>attractive style (these would not necessarily have to be the best move, just an >>attractive, exciting move). The suite would thus consist of moves that CSTAL >>finds regularly, that other programs find only inconsistently or not at all, and >>would become THE reference point for attractive chess. > >cstal needs no database of OLD positions it once found. >cstal always plays that good. so it plays those brilliant games >live, not only in later times. > >>I think that would be a nice contribution to our field, and it would quantify >>for your critics exactly what CSTAL can do that other programs cannot. > >quantification is something i let to you, as a narrow mind seeing only >2 stages of each thing, your matrerialism can handle quantitative things >much better than i can. for me quantification stuff is boring. > > >>Roger
This page took 0.01 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.