Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 07:30:39 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Bob and Dan: The reason why GMI are commonly opposed to play compuyters and/or to dismiss them from the beginning - reason of not so high players is different, of course- is in the sychic structure of those guys. A chess player of high level is not just a guy that play ches, but a chess-player and almost -not always, but very frequently- nothing else. They have commited fully to that, his entire life and self apreciation depends on that and what is more, they chose a kind of professions where there is not room for doubts according the strenght of those commited. That is a kind of very hard, difficult to face way of living. Just think how it would be if in ANY profession or activity a so precise and definite kind of clasification would exist. Life is bearable as much as you feel not all has been lost, that you still have an opoportunity. So if you are not in the top, you always can blame bad luck, politics or whatever. So you can bear the fact you are not a winner, the top gun. The french writer Anatole France said that the fact the french academy once in a while gave a chair to evidently poor writer was a proof of the wisdom of that organization, as such an always unfalible one would be unbearable. If the academy gives a chair to a non entity, said France, then the losers has a good reason to accept his fate as much the academy has proved beyond doubt his many failures. But in chess there is not room for that. If you are a 2000 player, you are such without excuse. No room to bad luck, etc. Now, returning to GMI, people that they live all the time in that scheme, to ask them that besides what they actually endures should accept without complain the arrival of these monster that, risking nothing, can deprive them of the only thing they have, his pride, his sense of power, maybe is too much. Each time a high level player play a game, he risk his entire being, his self, but at least he does so that against a guy that is in the same predicament. But a computer? What a computer lose if he loses? How could a GMI that puts his self-steem in his perfomances in a board could sustain it if then a mere toy can beat it to pieces? I have putted a lot of master against my programs and thet normally are beaten and is very sad to see how those men got depresed and then try to deprecate all the business talking of the "silly machines". Fernando
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.