Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 14:17:06 05/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 1998 at 15:58:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On May 22, 1998 at 15:41:28, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>c) The speed of a program is in itself a measure of knowledge in >>computer terms. Is very simplistic to see speed as a thing-as-such or as >>a “das ding an sich” in Katinan terms: this is for Thorsten :-) and >>independent of knowledge. You do with great speed what you know well. >>That is called “mastery” in any art or craft. It involves that a cluster >>of efficient proceedings are being used to discard unrelevant issues on >>the run.. >> >>Fernando > >I see your effort like Dons effort to put me into a b/w light. >I am able to understand about the points. >You can try to keep me informed. But if you try to inform me about a >thing, and adress personally, because YOU think i don't know about this >- or if you think I would think about this topic, thats your decision. >But I do not work as you claim. And I do not behave like Descartes or >fall in the trap of aristotelic-logic. I am able to integrate >superpositions in my life. >I don't need to think in binary trees or wrong/right-point of views. >Fritz is not the opposite of what i like. It does not divide me into >pieces. >It is nothing more than a weak playing chess program in my eyes. >I do not hate Frans Morsch or say he isn't a genius. >Why do you project (you or Don) these clichees into me when there is no >reason ? >It only tells me about you, not much about myself. Hello Thorsten! This is Rolf speaking (pulling your leg, of course :-)))) Anyway, just wanted to go along with Don and Fernando... as you may have presumed already. The philosopher that I'd like to invoke is not Kant, but Plotinus who said that what you do you do only if you are not aware of your doing it! For example, if you read, you read only if you are not aware of reading -- if you are aware that you are reading, then you are actually NOT reading anymore... Think about this, Thorsten. So, in order to have a program play chess it need not be terribly aware of what it does -- in other words it need not have any meta-theoretical knowledge, positional knowledge, or what not, explicitly programmed in and still play good and POSITIONAL chess, on condition it is fast enough (e.g. if it finds a mate in 30, without being very sophisticated, that is the very best move in the given position, isn't it? both the best tactical and positional one, right?). Just ask a 2440 FIDE, an excellent friend of mine, who is losing his 5 1 (one sec inc) match vs Fritz 5 41-7! Ask him about Fritz's not being able to play positional chess and he'll reply that Fritz has beaten him a dozen times purely on the basis of the strong/weak bishop or good/bad pawn structure steering the mid-game into a won ending. This is not only a question related to Fritz but to all fast searchers and the question is one of methodology, something that Fernando addressed in a typically philosophico-sociological manner. You do not seem to be able to accept a DIFFERENT approach without EVALUATING it and labelling it as 'weak', 'poor', etc. Why not only say -- different, or not likable, without those ugly little danglers - weak, poor, etc. I have never said that Hiarcs, CST or Mchess are weak, they are different from fast searchers, and they are very, very strong programs... However, I simply cannot accept your statement that Fritz 5 is a weak program. That statement is patently false and can be easily refuted in many ways. You keep saying that Fritz 5 is weak in the face of its results against other programs -- can you, please, corroborate it? I do not want your evaluation (you are quite free to feel any which way about Fritz) -- I am already perfectly aware that you do not like fast searchers , I want your reasons for saying that it is weak. OK? I hope we understand each other now, :-)))? Best regards, Djordje
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.