Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 15:35:43 02/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2000 at 17:26:16, Andrew Dados wrote: > Chess has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Chess is all deterministic. No >tunneling. Chess is a game. the end of the game is the result. it is 3 stages. 1-0 0-1 1/2 the result is cartesianic. it is old paradigm. you can measure the result. fill in statistics and count it. all right ? ok. the content of the game, the HOW and why and style and all the stuff that cannot be valued in the 3 stages above, is the game itself. this is the quantum-mechanics ! the result is the classical-paradigm. the game itself is the quantum-stuff. the one thing can be counted. the other is life and life cannot be counted. you get it ? >Let me recap: Chess is a game. Objective of the game is to mate the opponent >while obeying the rules of the game. thats true but does not change anything to the things i have said. >While you may claim some style is >'beautiful' or some style is 'ugly', outcome of the game is all it counts. nonsense. as i said: you can count the result. but what happens during the game is NON mechanistical. it cannot be described via counting or measuring. this is the reason computers do not play perfect. if you could count "the game" itself, we would have no chance at all. if the game itself would be measurable in numbers, computers would kill us. but it isn't. the game itself is NON-mechanistic. and not logical. you cannot see 100% reason. because there is nothing with 100%. it is not infinite. but the number is so big you cannot solve the puzzle. > And >since someone lost it means that someone made losing decisions. wrong. this is your thesis, but it is not always true. you don't know why the game is lost- you guess it. if you would know it 100% mechanistic, or call it deterministic, than chess would be solved from the 1st move to the last. it is a thesis!! you don't know why it is lost. it is not mechanistic. thats one reason people play a game of chess. because nobody really knows. that makes the game interesting. a game someone would be able to KNOW in forward would be uninteresting. > They may have >been beautiful for some, but they were bad. And program which makes less bad >decisions usually wins. no. this thesis exist in your mind as prejudice. but not in real, nobody can really define what a mistake is. we can only -within ranges - define mistake. but not 100 %. although chess in not infinite. that makes chess and life somehow the same. your life is not infinite too. but would you know how tomorrow is ? 0-1 ? 1-0 ? or draw ? no - you do not know if you last action today, your last post here was "the mistake" and tomorrow you get mated and die. you don't know. and thats good. thats what makes life valuable. like a good game of chess is valuable. what is imprtant for your life is not the result. it is the game itself, the experience you make in your life. not what the result is. and you do never know what is a mistake. only when the game is over you can guess. but you cannot be sure. what a pity. you see: game is quantum-physics. result is deterministic. >For arts I get oils and paint. thats non-deterministic too. > I don't watch some program prettending to be an >artist. because programs are to dumb in the moment. they are deterministic. and therefore they cannot play chess. they compute chess. yes. but they have no idea about it. therefore you prefer to paint yourself. >It's only a program and I know it. And if it loses to others it's >inferior. Period. pah - you don't understand the difference between something that is deterministic and something that is life. the game is the thing that counts. the result is unimportant. and anybody saying different has no life himself. "4.2" said Moritz. but thats not enough to exist. >-Andrew-
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.