Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 17:55:48 04/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
>I fully subscribe to this last sentence: Thorsten's discrete (in the
>mathematical sense of the word) view of the world is pure black and
>white - either you're a materialist or you're like him, either you're a
>motherson (according to him) or a fatherson (nice labels ...), either
>it's a "smart and slow" chess program or a "dumb and fast searcher" [and
>nothing in between, as if there weren't enough *slow and dumb* programs
>around ;-)].
Soso. Hoert hoert !
Here the truth comes.
When I don't like dumb and fast searchers, why do I like Chess Tiger ?
When I hate mothersons, why do I like Fischer ?
Why do I like Nimzo ? Isn't it dumb and fast ?
And why the hell, when we are friends, do I attack you ?
If you are my friend, or Dirk is my friend, why do I attack you when I
am different opinion.
Knowing only black and white would not allow me to differenciate between
you and your opinions, or ?
Why do I not subscribe to anything Chris says.
Why do I defend Bob although I have attacked him much earlier.
Why do I like Bruce ? Why do I like Rebel although it is fast ?
Why do I attack Rolf for using these words and calling my friend Nazi's
or fascsists when he seems to like CStal. shouldn't I do friendship with
him and fight against those materialists like BOb or Bruce ?
Moritz - in fact - you try to give me your pair of old shoes. If YOUR
theory would be used as basement, you would get 1000 contradictions. You
would get more contradicitions that provals for your definitions.
Can you explain to me why like the ConnerS programmer although he is a
motherson and why I like Matthias although he is ChessBase ?
In a black/white world this would give some interferences , or ?
>I think that this problem of polarized perceptions is the main theme of
>this thread - we (all of us, speaking for myself) sometimes completely
>lose our real world perspective, in the sense that the differences in
>the methods employed by Fritz and Chess System Tal are in fact
>incredibly small in the general picture of human chess players and
>machines built upon a von Neumann architecture.
No - the discussion is not about polarized perceptions. I am pretty used
to superpositions and stuff like this. In fact it is my famous topic to
read and work out about rules/logic and group-logic.
It is NOT about Tipler here.
Not about (what Mader or Mally thought) manichaeism.
You project your clichees.
I do differenciate. The problem is: you don't seem to be able to SEE
them.
Therefore people e.g. believe I hate them because I have said something
against their statements. But this OUTS that THEY do live in those
manichaeism-b/w-world. Not me.
>Funny enough, by striving to distinguish programs as much as possible
>(and therefore exaggerating their respective characteristics) most
>people seem to fail to provide detailed descriptions of specific chess
>related motives which can be observed in the play of different programs
>(of course this would be the most interesting but also the most daunting
>task). Mats Winter did a good job (hey Mats, please stay!) by pointing
>out exactly which moves by Fritz he didn’t like in some games he posted,
Your problem is that you believe a move is only a part of a game.
It isn't moritz.
The whole game is more than the parts.
In a game of chess. In life. In any thing.
This is your reductionistic mistake. You split the object intp parts:
MOVES and you believe that showing ONE move is wrong does tell you
anything about CHESS.
I give up.
When my discussion produces exactly the prejudices I wanted to explain
about, than it is better i resign.
You call me b/w and you do this by showing your own b/w-prejudices.
>this way everybody could unterstand the quality of his statements and
>take part in a debate about the actual games. Too sad that for some this
>became again a black-or-white question of pro- and contra-Fritz and even
>pro- and contra the person of Mats (something completely inappropriate
>here if you ask me).
>
>A contradiction in itself is e.g. when Thorsten (sorry Thorsten ... ;-)
>- for fairness sake I shall add that most of us are sometimes in danger
>of falling into exactly the same trap ...) states that "Fritz plays just
>ugly chess" and in the next breath accuses everybody else of "just
>counting results like 1-0 1/2-1/2 and 0-1" (and therefore being
>MATERIALISTS (sic!)). Both statements ("ugly chess" and "1-0") obviously
>do not sufficiently satisfy the goal of our quest to gain some real
>insights about the marvelous and challenging chess opponents which I
>think our computers have become just during the past decade. Getting
>dogmatic and inflexible is always the worst sin and sometimes even leads
>up to becoming both intolerant and intolerable to others (talking
>strictly about myself). Respecting other opinions is the first step in
>avoiding the aforementioned trap and even improving my own insight into
>my own position (which might well have been wrong to begin with). Gee –
>didn’t I really just do a great job of presenting myself as a 100 year
>old grandpa full of biblical wisdom :-)))
I would say ugly chess refers to the style. 0-1 to the result. The one
is qualifying judgement. The other quantifying.
The one speaks about subjective opinion, the other about objective
facts.
Whenever I present a game here, people claim that this is an exception.
We should stop discussing here.
It does not make sense to discuss if the people believe the topic is a
completee different than announced. It is not about black/white, it is
about something else.
>An example of the quality of statements I would accept is to describe
>the concept of CSTal to differentiate moves of "equal" quality (per
>evaluation function) by one higher order term (aka TAL function). This
>example BTW is also the kind of stuff we occasionally get from Thorsten
>(I am trying make up for the remarks above ;-)). Another (albeit not
>very specific) kind of statement I would like to read more often is of
>the kind "program x utilizes its knowledge of the strength of good and
>bad bishops, as you can see in the analysis of the following 10 selected
>positions from GM and computer games".
I will say the following:
Forget about the games. Just print the list with the results. Thats
enough.
Go into a zoo and throw your papers with the notations into the cage.
Maybe the apes will find out the truth. Human beeing seem to be too
complex to understand ...
>Let’s go back to the roots of what this place is all about (the MAGIC of
>chess), this might well be our key to the next level of enlightenment
>;-))))
>
>Your soon-to-be-101-years-old-grandfather-in-spe
Sometimes old people behave like kids.
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.