Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 05:21:54 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2001 at 05:58:36, Duncan Stanley wrote: >I've been not understanding the above arguments for about the last six years, :-)) >and I don't understand it now. hm. why shall i try and try and try to explain you the concept. read F.David Peat's "Sychronicity" and you will maybe understand. >Despite all your efforts to explain it to me. sorry. >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. sorry. >What are the particles? I don't understand. electrons, photons, whatever you want. the things that move in your brain, in your nerves, in your body when you think that YOU think. >>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. of cause there is connection between life and chess. when business men exploit chess programmers, you see the connection. when lasker was 27 years world chess champion and also philosoph and mathematician and political interested and writing books about go, bridge, the community of the future, the world itself, dramatical books together with his brother: "vom menschen die geschichte", he invented LASKA and he also said: "the powers that enable a man to analyse, and solve a chess problem are the powers to analyse and solve problems in quite other directions. the powers that enable a player by synthetical skill, to bring together new and beautiful positions on the chess board, are the same powers that enable men to combine ideas in all other forms of intellectual activity." "There is no game on earth played by anybody but Dr.Tarrasch in which he would not point out a mistake or a faster road to victory or improvement of some kind. in his criticisms his personality must be predominant. this is the one great weakness of the doctor's critical judgment. in his personal life he is, LIKE MANY GERMANS OF THE BETTER CLASSES, >>always correct>>. To be >>correct>>, signifies, in GERMANY , THE ATTITUDE of a man whose conduct, in the judgment of his neighbours is ALWAYS PROPER and befitting his station. in order to be >correct> one must be guided by the opinion of others, one must be without a moral or ethical code of one's own, and annex that of one's surroundings. in dress, in what he says and does in public, Dr.Tarrasch is always >correct>. It is the same in chess. he always tries to find the >correct> move which, if his understanding of it is analysed, is the move which, in the opinion of the best judges, would satisfy all requirements. as he is very painstaking and earnest in his studies, his strength in chess is exceedingly great. BUT still one cannot help feeling that it is aquired, not born in him, for he follows the progress of ideas but never leads it." Lasker describes (1906!) not only Tarrasch here, he describes a classical computerchess paradigm ! See that he saw this brute-force behaviour as typical GERMAN. chessbase is a german company and, matthias wuellenweber often reminds me with his logical and >>correct>> behaviour on Dr.Tarrasch. the whole computerchess is in a german dilemma of trying to be correct and finding the best move and WINNING, all without OWN morals, or ethical code. they adapt the way all others do it, follow and make it perfect and accurate, but they do not lead us into new paradigms. typical german IMO. correct, but completely boring and without any innovation. :-)) >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. it is not about moral because some people, not all, behave immoral. i could name them. i could extrapolate for you how they will react in a situation A or B when C happens. They are very easy to look through, since their main target is winning and making money out of it. they win and win and win, and LOSE. you did different, yes ? they cruxified you, spitted you out of the club, signed against you, and still you won, right ? your program never WON a title, but it played chess. this is something they will never reach, as long as they follow a paradigm that is old und rusty and only used because it makes the programmers the best way exploited. chess system tal planned in a game of chess. it behaves intelligent. it creates a plan to kill the opponent. >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. THEY - the materialists say that there is only ONE target. THEY say it needs no fairness and no moral, THEY behave immoral and exploit people and ideas. BUT THEY are not ALL. T H E Y are only a few, who exploited a bunch of people in a special situation in a capitalistic era of the world. bruce is not in. bob is not in. you are not in. IMO stefan is also not IN. ed is not in. christophe is maybe not in. mark is not in. marty is not in. i know many others (amateurs and other people) who are also NOT into the immoral club. for them, WINNING is NOT the target alone, but friendship, social structures and quality. sharing ideas, sharing beauty and quality. the group of a few, willing to destroy everything just for a few cent more on their bank account is small. i can name them as 10 people within a group of 30 or 50. >Quite so. The argument I keep using on you to dispute your chess=life >philosophy. >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? chess is finite. but the game cannot be solved within lifetime. therefore you have nearly infinite possibilities. life is finite. >There's a lot more that you can imagine than is in chess. right. but in all other areas it is the same thing: quantity leads to nowhere.
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.