Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:05:58 02/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2000 at 07:31:42, Thorsten Czub wrote:
[snip]
>
>we all know about this. but it would be wrong to reduce life to 1-0/ 0-1/ 1/2
>but in a game of chess we try too. and some materialist want to tell us:
>only the result counts.- what a nonsense. life counts, not the result.
>so the game counts. not the numbers behind.
>
I think you missed the point. I do not disagree with what you said about life
and the why. I did not say that only the results count.
What I said is that I am tired of listening to certain whinning programmers who
say "Oh, I had a bug in my program.". I consider the why in that case to be of
little value. Bugs are part of programs. People should learn to live with it. I
can live with a final 1-0, 1/2 - 1/2, or 0-1 result in this case. But some
people cannot. They have to attempt to come up with reasons that in reality, do
not really indicate the true why.
When you or anyone else analyzes a computer chess game, what do you really
discover? Do you discover the reason that a program made a mistake (the why) or
do you discover a mistake (the what) and hope that the programmer will be able
to piece together the cause and effect of the various algorithms which led to
that mistake (and possibly correct it for future games)?
The point is that although the why has meaning and value, it is not the end all.
First of all, we would be very arrogant to believe that we understand the why
(just like we do not understand why ChessProgram 1.3 pushes a pawn in a given
position).
We know the result. The program pushed the pawn (the what). We DO NOT know the
why (how the algorithms specifically came up with that decision).
So, what has your discussion here done? It has proven that you can break down
the granularity of a given system (in this case a chess game) into a series of
elements (i.e. moves - Nf3, d5, etc.). You know the what. You still do not know
the why and you never will.
I take your statement above ("what a nonsense. life counts, not the result. so
the game counts. not the numbers behind") down one more level of granularity and
say:
What a nonsense. The algorithms count, not the move. The move is just a result.
What really counts is the large number of steps required to come up with that
move.
Do you see my point?
In the big scheme of things, it is fine to draw a line. I draw it at the game
result level. You draw it at the move result level. Neither is nonsense. Neither
is correct. Just different lines.
People who are not interested in computer chess but are interested in chess may
draw it at the line of the winner of a tournament. People who are not interested
in chess at all may draw it at the line of world chess champion.
Different lines based on different interests. Not right. Not wrong. Not
nonsense, just different.
KarinsDad :)
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.