Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:12:27 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 05:21:07, José Carlos wrote: > Resignation is not a due, but a right. Tiviakov was nervous playing the >computer, but he was wrong in his claim. > As for the other players that didn't play, I understand them. We have here a clear problem. The concept of fairness must be discussed with the computer side. A computer is not a human being, so he doenn't know ethics. So we must find certain rules for the play against computers. We must also - against your assumption! - find rules for the right to demand the machine's resignation, yes. > That's a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the book, and >it concerns, as I said, to the programmer (Bob in this case). With all due respect for the solidarity among programmers the problem does _not_ concern programmers alone. The point is that computers with their programmers do not belong to a club called The Untouchables. The side of human chess must have access to the machine and if the programmers will forbid it, there won't be any participation of computers in human chess tournaments. Easy one that one. >>We have now a moment of highest interest. What you are saying with not the least >>self-doubts is for me the highest and most trivial form of fallacy. > > > Thank you for your nice comment. > > >>BTW decades >>after the debates in Atom physics. The simple rejection to your simple statement > > > Oh, thanks again! > > >>is this, no, it is not all allowed what a programmer is doing. And you know >>yourself where the clue is in your argumentation. You said, if SSDF, if >>tournaments, then strength. Yes, but fairness? > > > What do you understand for "fairness"? Maybe we understand different things. >Is it fair that your opponent is allowed to touch the pieces during the game and >you aren't? > > >>That is the most important factor >>in sports. If you like it or not. It's the British who brought it into the >>World. :) >> >>So, could you please modernize your argumentation included these points? > > > Well, either I'm too stupid or you're too clever, but I have no idea why your >"british fairness" refutes my argumentation, nor how your "british fairness" can >be more modern than my arguments about computer programming. Yes, I understand. We have a real problem here. It's all about ethics. This is very old in fact. Excuse me that I seem unable to follow you into modern computer programming. Good luck then for the next "GM challenges" in PR. >>Yes, I agree. You found two rather uninteresting comparisons. > > > Your constantly offensive words suggest you're running out of arguments. I see a different problem here and therefore I already closed the debate once. Your interpretation of my words as offensive is itself insultive for me. But you dodn't need a change of the rules or practices because you are happy with comp vs comp and "GM challenges". Good luck for you and your program, José! > > >>The most important >>is however, what a computer player should be. What parts etc. > > > Should be according to what? > My patience for tolerating such communicative things is immense. (snipped) > Very interesting. > > José C. So far about 'running out of arguments'. Perhaps we could talk again in a less heated moment. Thanks for many interesting arguments. Rolf Tueschen
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.