Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:02:48 04/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2001 at 06:21:31, Duncan Stanley wrote: >Oliver Roese argues that in Computer Chess the doctrine of "End justifies the >Means" has been taken to its full, absurd and logical conclusion. All that >matters is the WIN - the "how" of the "win-result" becomes immaterial; all >morality, all fairness, all human-ness is removed from the "means". this is against laskers doctrine. lasker especially was interested in the fairness. >Can he really be right? How far does his cultural imperative extend? Is all >discourse a mere manoeuvre towards a win position by any means? Isn't his view >too intolerable to accept? as long as chess computer programs are stupid but fast, the HOW is not important and the WIN counts much. with cars it is the same. important is the WIN, the maximum speed, not the HOW it is driving. with girls it is the same. with money. it is called materialism. all that counts is the measuring of something. not the quality. >read up on your sun tzu: win the battle before it starts, your opponant is >trying to. chess is a war game, leave the moralists outside the gate when the >question is how to crush your foe. this is a game, but it is a serious game. >WIN IT. no. lasker was 27 seven years a world champion, but he never was unfair, even against tarrasch, and he would have many many reasons to take revenge against him. but - fairness and moral has something to do with the SENSE you see in the game. if you see NO sense in chess other then to win, you will not work out any moral. but for me, chess and computerchess is more than winning. chess and life have rules. if you don't accept the rules, and be unfair, unsportmenlike, and breaking morals, you will win, but it leads to capitalism and not to quality. it leads to quantity.
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.