Author: Robert Raese
Date: 19:39:59 04/23/01
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. > > >>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. >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). again, i do not see any conflict between quantity and quality in competitive chess... the better quality moves a program makes, the better its quantity of wins will be, they GO HAND IN HAND. >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. i do not think love is something to become "connected to", nor is love a feeling. love is action. doing the right thing. it is friendship. friendship means respect and trust and these qualities will lead to loving actions. your concept is too mystical, too many things which are NOT love can be grouped in with "love" by your definition, because it is too nebulous and general. >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. NO. there is no such split between quantity and quality. a quality chess player, silicon or otherwise, will rack up the 1-0 scores. you forget that in the context of a game, winning is the final measure of the quality of play. >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. > >of course you can play chess and also win without ever touching the topic >quality. yes, you can be a winner in chess without philosophizing about quality, but you cannot be a winner in chess by playing poor quality moves. that is the huge point you keep overlooking -- there is NO DUALISM. >you can program a dump chess program that wins >without any understanding of the quality that is folded within the >particles. wins against what opponant? put your "dump chess program" against gambit tiger for example, and lets see where quality is... the way we will know it is quality is BY THE NUMBERS. better scores = better quality play. >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. > >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. i strongly disagree. if you drink wine it may lead to amorous feelings and possibly sex with a beautiful woman... which is certainly not nothing. :) thorsten, i agree with the SPIRIT of your views, particularly your last few comments... however i think you are overlooking an important truth. in competitive chess, quality and quantity cannot be divorced. you cannot create a chess program that plays a high quality game yet fails to "get the numbers"... IN GAMES, UNLIKE LIFE, QUALITY IS MEASURED BY WINNING. you cannot call a computer program that plays "beautifully" while losing most of its games "the best quality" program. >> 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. >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. > >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. life is not only about winning. agreed. but COMPETITIVE chess is PRIMARILY about winning, and quality is measured by wins, losses, draws. we have no other measuring stick. >> 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. > >> do not >>confuse competitive chess with chess for fun or chess for the beauty of chess. > >you cannot devide the world. this is what i am saying... stop trying to create a duality where only part of the world has quality and other parts only quantity. it is not like that. quality is an intangible thing _in life_ to the point where people have sharp disagreements over what quality even is... look at the world of art for example. one guy looks at a painting and says "utter rubbish", the next guy pulls out his wallet and pays $150,000 for it because it is "beautiful" to him. go figure. but in games it is much simpler. you cannot tell me that a chess program or player is better quality if it does not score better against competition. period. >anything you can imagine is in everything. >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. LOL thorsten, really you wax poetic sometimes... i am not a materialist, and i am not a spiritualist... IMHO, the truth is somewhere in between... in the BALANCE of it all.... ;)
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.