Author: Robert Raese
Date: 15:32:32 04/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2001 at 13:02:48, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. there is nothing unfair being suggested, what is the problem? >>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? this is not about teaching children morals, it is about how to WIN a chess match. the match begins long before the players sit down at the chessboard. it begins with the negotiation of rules and conditions of play. look at the history of bobby fischer for how this works. defeating a human opponant MENTALLY before the match starts is good strategy, regardless of what sport you play. as a member of a competitive team (software,hardware,operator) the operator MUST do all he can to make sure that his team is not disadvantaged by rules and conditions. to fail to attempt this is to serve poorly. "just go along with what is proposed" is a bad start. >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. i don't see the dualism. it is not a matter of quality VERSUS quantity. for a competitive chess program, WINNING is the measure of its "worthiness"... that is the only "morality" there is for a chess program... win, win, and win... we must make no attempt to humanize the machine, and we must do nothing to undermine its strength... rather we must embrace its goal of WINNING and help it to win games. >>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. competitive chess is only about winning. it can be about nothing else. do not confuse competitive chess with chess for fun or chess for the beauty of chess.
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.