Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:39:57 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 19:12:36, Albert Silver wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 18:44:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>>It just shows what clods humans can be. Not only did it take 30 years for >>>someone to get the idea of ...c6 but it was only because the fantastic idea of >>>9...d5! had already been show to them. >> >>You will say it's circles or a merry-go-round but I will prove you the fallacy >>in your perception. BTW I like your contributions more and more. Now, after >>having assumed that I had insulted you, what was not the case, > >I choose not to argue this ad nauseaum, but yes, you did, and on more than one >occasion. Ok. Then it might have been in the hidance. But you never accused me before. You stopped to debate many times but never because I had insulted you. At least you didn't say so. But if it the case, then I feel sorry. I hope it didn't happen last year or now. Perhaps you were insulted when I spoke about certain hypotheses. Honestly I always expected that the whole topic wouldn't exist here. Why did you never write me email about it? I didn't know that you felt so hurt. > >>you talk this way >>about other human beings. Justified or not, this is the question. I say no, not >>justified! >> >>Simply because you miss the most important point in chess. That's why we can't >>compare chess with science. >> >>Why? >> >>Because other than in science in chess nobody is forced to give away his >>secrets. He might wait decades before he opens his books... > >So when dozens of top players began playing it they had ALL been secretly >holding onto ...c6 for 30 years. I say all because if only one player found it, >then all others are only copying him. Since it was then played by many players, >they must all have been keeping it a secret for some 30 years. Well.... some >less since they weren't all 30 years-old yet. Just consider the different levels of players. Then you differentiate between the different preferences of the best players. Then every day has 24 hours. You can take for granted that that in the old days only the real top players did thourough research. BTW what I read about the famous game of Botvinnik in Huebner's commentary, proved even this to be wrong. Without a comp analyses were not exactly fun. I have great respect for the study authors. No, chess isn't science. > >> >>>Your theory that no one serious looked at >>>it for 30 years is one I do not believe in. >> >>Strange because you say that you are teaching chess... not looking but talking. > >I didn't understand what you meant with looking and not talking. Looking but not talking about the results. > > >>>As I said, I contend that had they known nothing about the openings they play, >>>there are MANY moves and lines top players would most likely not find on their >>>own. They are using and building on the knowledge of others. >> >>Yes, of course. But your first sentence is false. A GM will find what he wants >>to find. In principal! > >If you really believe that a GM could find all of theory on their own with no >prior knowledge then I think you overestimate their ability somewhat. When a >brilliant new move or line is discovered, it isn't because no one had seriously >analyzed that position before the analyst who discovered it, it is simply >because no one had the idea. Without prior knowledge, but GM? Ok, I would still say, yes, GM are able to do it. As I said, it's not as if it were a national task suddenly to find the solution of a problem. The MOTIVATION is the biggest factor. Once set on the track a GM will find all solutions. Promissed. > > >>(!) >> >>Albert, let's stop here, because you won't support computers in human chess >>tournaments anyway. Just spend a little thinking about those who can't compete >>themselves and who therefore would like that their machines would participate. > >Ex: "Hi, I can't compete in this 5000 meter race myself, so is it ok if I have >my automatic motorbike participate instead? I can set it to not go over 25 km/h >if you like..." No, I think I have understood your thought. You see just the numbers. Know what I see in these comps? The precursors of the first artificial race on earth. And if you say, but you don't even program, then I say, yes, but isn't this an interdisciplinary field, computerchess? Rolf Tueschen > > Albert > >>It's always a question of dimensions, so to speak, perhaps I'm too far away in >>other dimensions, and therefore some few here think it should be enough. Perhaps >>I am too creative which often causes a lot of angst. Sigh. >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >>P.S. I'm happy now.
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.