Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:04:17 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
I didn't see the post. I think that many of the commercials use engine vs engine results as their prime measure of strength. I used to think that this was because people wanted to impress humans who wanted to buy programs. The humans are always asking which is the strongest program, under the assumption that the best engine vs engine program will be the best engine vs human program. But I think it's gotten to the point where engine vs engine is an end unto itself. I don't have an autotester, but when I log my thing onto ICC I would like to play humans, but mostly computers play, presumably because the top humans would rather play the "human only" rating-pigs. I would like to think that I am creating something that is strong. But I think that an interesting playing style is a component of that. Since I don't use scientific methods to determine what strong is, I use my own eyes to determine what looks most fun. My goal is to make something that wins with style, with emphasis on both aspects, not a rating-pig. bruce On April 21, 2001 at 06:21:31, Duncan Stanley wrote: > >I am personally grateful to Oliver Roese's answer below to the question "What is >is Objective of Computer Chess". The question has been posed in several threads >and posts and *no* computer chess expert has seen fit to answer it, until now. > >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". > >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? > > > > >============================================================== >>The human player, even if he has a limited "computing" power, is allowed to be >>as creative as possible. Why would the programmer be forbidden to be? > >You can be as creative as you want. But not at the last minute with the effect >of confusing the human. >=== > > >the height of absurdity. the whole idea is to confuse the human. that is how >the machine will win. > >do not try to divorce the programmer from his creation when it is their time to >prepare for battle. as long as machines require an operators, there will only >be a SYSTEM, not just a software. the competitive system is >software/hardware/operator... one "polymorphing" SYNTHESIS.... this is >everything to understand the current debate. > >if i am operator in such a system, it is my job to serve the other parts in this >system to maximize their chances for performing optimally agaist OUR foes. > >it is self-evident that in chess matches, as in war and streetfights, the >element of SURPRIZE is everything. chess is virtually defined as the attempt to >surprize your opponant. to say, "no fair, you confused the human at the crucial >moment" is a COMPLIMENT to any operator worthy of the title. > >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.
This page took 0.01 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.