Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 02:58:36 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2001 at 04:40:10, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On April 21, 2001 at 18:32:32, Robert Raese wrote: >>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. > >right. > Wrong. > >>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, > >nonsense. I am not sure what you mean by the word "nonsense" here. Presumably that you don't *approve* of the moral-lack? Because it seems difficult to dispute the statement that a "chess machine has no morality, and has only the objective to win". Doesn't it? You could argue that the program we designed together, Chess System Tal, was not too bothered about winning, it was designed to play 'interesting' moves, I suppose; but I wouldn't try to posit that the program had a 'morality' built into it - it was just a chunk of instructions. Morality is a bit too high level a concept for us to have programmed in, no? >for everything in life there is quantity and quality. >this has nothing to do with humans. >it also works with particles or rocks. >things ae connected with forces (quantity) >and with sense (quality=synchronicity). > >this works for particles and for humans, cause humans live out of >particles. > >when people are connected with quality, they call it love. >they do not know exactly that their particles are conected >in a state of quality. all they feel is a good feeling and their logic >registeres that things arround them run illogical and strange. > >two particles can interfere by narrow exchange, this is called force, >and two particles can interfere no matter how far the distance is >between them. if they were in an event, and have opposite spin, >they are related through quality=synchronicity. >this relation works no matter where they are, they are both as ONE. > >humans can feel it because they have a brain and nerves and in those brains >and nerves the particles interfere with each other. >some using normal exchange and some using wider exchange. > >a number is something you can measure. but when the numbers are in an order, >or a pattern, you get a higher quality. > >in fact this is where the spirit in the material world is. > >if you only count the 1-0, 0-1, 1/2, you will only measure quantity. > >but if you take a look into synchronicities such as content, sense >and meaning, the how, the why and the order/pattern of things, >you get an idea how the world is really worked out. I've been not understanding the above arguments for about the last six years, and I don't understand it now. Despite all your efforts to explain it to me. I accept your ideas of 'quality' rather than 'quantity', and there's a parallel between computer chess results materialism versus game and move quality and the real world, but the further arguments, I don't pretend to comprehend. > >of course you can play chess and also win without ever touching the topic >quality. > >you can program a dump chess program that wins >without any understanding of the quality that is folded within the >particles. What are the particles? I don't understand. > >in the same way a human beeing can live and be succesful without >an understanding of the sense of life, of god or the word: quality. > >a human beeing can drink wine without an understanding of quality. >he drinks the glasses and counts them. but he isn't developing taste >and a feeling for quality. > > >you can live and work with love and passion, or without it. >but in the last case, it will lead to nothing. > >if you work on a thing, with love and passion, it will produce quality. >if you concentrate on winning and measurement, it will lead to nothing. Agreed. > >you can produce a chess program that has no idea about chess. >and you can drink wine without an understanding about wine. > >but it will lead to nothing. > >> and we must do nothing to >>undermine its strength... rather we must embrace its goal of WINNING and help it >>to win games. > >your point of view is capitalistic. it is pure materialism. you believe >that there is no other sense in life or in chess than to win. One imagines he is playing devil's advocate. >you reduce chess (and maybe life) on numbers and on measure them. >but chess is more. by understanding the sense, and the quality that is folded >in the game of chess, you can find the rules of life and the sense of life. No. Ther is no connection between chess and life. I've been arguing this with you for six years, without any success at all. > >because the sense and the spirit of the material is within everything. >only you have to recognize it, instead of counting senseless data. > >>competitive chess is only about winning. > >chess programs will never develop, and get stronger, if they do not understand >that they have to produce a sense in a game, that is more than winning. >if chess programs do not develop, they do not play chess. >only they know the rules and use them to combine a main-line that is not losing >material. > >chess is not only about winning. Isn't this the key to your life-position? You *want* chess (or more - computer chess) to be about life and fairness and a bunch of moral ideas; but, in reality it isn't. Every single indication is that it is actually about the result, about winning, about not losing. All fields have a culture running through them that defines how they are. In a crisis this culture is revealed more clearly to people. In chess and more so in computer chess, this culture is about winning at all costs. It is about the result. It is about materialism. It is about competition not solidarity. It is about division of one from another. It is actually about everything you dislike, yet you are utterly drawn to it and keep trying to argue for the opposite of everything the culture stands for. > life is not only about winning. > Quite so. The argument I keep using on you to dispute your chess=life philosophy. > >> it can be about nothing else. > >than you have no idea about chess. all you know is the rules of the game, >but you have not understanded the sense. >you are blind, like the chess programs, you have no plan. >you live and drink wine, you make children and you drive your car, >but it leads to nothing other than to war, destroyment of earth, to racism, >sexism and chauvinism. >if you do not feel and search and try to find the patterns and the plan that is >folded within the particles, we call it love, god, quality or sense, >synchronicity ... you do not live in peace and in nature. you are >an object that walks out of nature. that goes out of the plan. >you count things, that are unimportant. There isn't any plan in the chess 'particles'. There's just 64 squares and 6 types of pieces, they don't even move in real time, its alternate moves; the move directions are all coded and invariant, when the move reaches a boundary it has to stop. The system simplifies as it moves forward with time. One side wins and the other loses. What has this bounded game got to do with life? > >> do not >>confuse competitive chess with chess for fun or chess for the beauty of chess. > >you cannot devide the world. >anything you can imagine is in everything. There's a lot more that you can imagine than is in chess. >you cannot devide what is ONE. >you can of course ignore it. but it leads to nothing. >your life is not full of love. it is full of senseless counting, >senseless programming and without any social activity, without sense. > >be a materialist. but don't confuse about the tragedy of your point of view. >a creature that denies to understand the world. >that refutes to find out the plan or the sense of the universe - is a dead >creature.
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.