Author: Moritz Berger
Date: 02:11:14 04/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 1998 at 20:55:48, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>>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.
Yes, I did describe only one aspect of you, which fails to correctly
represent your entire personality. But this is what I was talking about,
didn't I? Now my argumentation is getting very sophisticated ... ;-)
>
>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 ?
But labels are always dangerous ((C) L.Wittgenstein). I feel that we all
can be pretty polarizing at times, why do you exlude yourself from this
observation? The famous "counting to 10" procedure is one thing which
helps in certain situations.
>>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.
So why do you call people MATERIALISTS???? I know nobody I would dare to
label as a 100% (to quantify it :-)) materialist.
>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.
If Fritz and CST play the same moves *except* one, I wan't to know which
one that is. In chess, the annotation symbols !,!? and even ?! signify
the importance of *concepts* behind certain moves. In the context of the
game (which is indeed needed) it then (if the opponent allows it)
becomes clear if the move was played "for the right reason".
>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.
But I don't do this. So some part of your observation doesn't quite fit
(take this last sentence as an example of how to avoid being accused of
"reductionism").
>I give up.
>When my discussion produces exactly the prejudices I wanted to explain
>about, than it is better i resign.
Come on, you never resign (again reductionsim at work ;-) But you really
never...except when you do.)
>You call me b/w and you do this by showing your own b/w-prejudices.
Impressive demonstration of the topic, no?
>>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.
But for you, it sometimes sounds like it is both "ugly" and "1-0" and
therefore by inference -> "cheating". But as you said yourself, one is
qualifying, the other quantifying, so apples and pears don't equate.
>The one speaks about subjective opinion, the other about objective
>facts.
>Whenever I present a game here, people claim that this is an exception.
One *bad* game tends to be worthless because
a) all programs play bad moves from time to time. Don't tell me that
individual moves don't count when it fact there's one losing move which
can be clearly identified and also almost all of the moves would have
been made by all other programs, too.
b) bad computer chess is a pain to watch.
c) If a program plays bad chess, this is only exceptional if it happens
in a certain quantity, like 100 or 200 games against different
opponents.
Why don't you continue with posting *good* games with creative moves
(the really intersting thing in chess) and maybe in spite of the good
quality of style a loss in the end for the aesthetic champion? The CST
game with the rook e3 (?) manouvre from AEGON 97 (?) comes to my mind (I
don't remember if it won or lost), everybody liked it when you posted it
and you also didn't refrain from pointing out that the rook move was the
key move in that game ;-))
>We should stop discussing here.
I disagree.
>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.
I pointed out that we need to be more subtle to find out anything about
the real topic. So this is on topic.
>>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.
But I would have to add them at least? Quantify win/loss ratios?
Calculate a standard deviation? Do a chi square test on them? I like bar
charts, too.
>Go into a zoo and throw your papers with the notations into the cage.
We don't have a zoo here in Bonn ... And throwing objects into cages (as
well as feeding the animals) if forbidden.
>Maybe the apes will find out the truth. Human beeing seem to be too
>complex to understand ...
I would like to try if elephants had to contribute to chess, I bet they
could remember a frightful lot of opening theory and since their brains
can process sensual information 10 times faster than ours they might
become decent chess opponents.
>
>>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.
I 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.