Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 15:25:29 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 17:32:39, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 17:01:17, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>Oh no, not you Thorsten! > >:-))) > >i don't understand what you mean. Matrix is my best example >for how capitalism works. >the people do not even realize anymore that they get exploited. >they believe that they live in freedom and in fact they are in a tank, >while the machines get their energy. > >>You SHOULD understand my point. > >aha. > >>You always talk about "the borgs". Isn't it about not believing in propaganda, >>learning to think by oneself? > >but - i am the same opinion. when stefan writes something that fits to my mind, >why should i think this is propaganda. >it sounded very logical and normal to me. > > >>That's my point here. > >yes. i do see. >but why is it propaganda when stefan explains why he did not participate. >its obvious. > >this match is a nonsense, organized for the benefit of a single company, >they take some people they believe that these guys have reputation, >and they misuse this to make the tournament (although it has unbelievable bad >conditions) into an event. > >but a shit thing is not growing into a good thing just because >a few more or less idle and arrogant experts give their names. > >enrique and the ssdf claimed to be objective testers. >IMO they out themselves as the opposite in the whole process of the match. >cause they show us exactly that they cannot differenciate between >normal (good conditions for computerchess) and NOT good conditions for >computerchess. > >how can anybody who wants to be taken serious support a tournament that is >beeing organised under these conditions. > >for me the whole discussion is wasted time. >i will not follow this match and it does not interest me. >its unfair and i am not interested in PR-campaigns that are unfair and without >sense. > >i wonder why those experts cannot handle out fair and normal conditions. >i can only guess that those conditions come from the business guys. >and this shows what is our mess. > >the completely different point of view, of business men and computerchess >enthusiasts. > >the one construct such a match, with those unbelievable conditions. >even david levy, himself in charge for a few icca championships with - lets >say it moderate - minor problems, makes jokes about it. > >if HE laughs about it, how loud shall my laugh be, cause i critisized the icca >for their mistakes ? > > >>Somebody said "Kramnik wants to have the program in advance, so he is going to >>win all the games". > >right. > > >>And everybody followed and said "yes, that's unacceptable". > >but it IS unacceptable. >you don't have to do such a match if you do it THIS way. > >i don't see your point. >if he has the program month before, he will learn how to beat it. To make any progress on this you need to resolve this question ... What is the objective of computer chess? What are you trying to do? Is there agreement on the objective? Or different camps? Massive calculating machine or human thought emulation or make some money from exhibition match? .... think about it .... and then wonder if it actually matters (at this stage in development) whether the human is able to get an advantage by 'knowing' the program beforehand. Over to you ....
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.