Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:52:42 07/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2002 at 05:28:22, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 16, 2002 at 04:55:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Such hip-hop makes no sense. You were talking about a "bruised ego". Are you a >>psychiatrist? If not, then you might understand what I was talking about. Do you >>challenge me and think that there is _no_ evidence for what I've written? If >>yes, then let me give you three hints. >> >>1) Unzicker a famous German GM, BTW more famous than all the ex-Soviet GM in the >>USA together, spoke it out, what I wrote above. > >That doesn't make it true. > >>2) GM at the Dutch Championship denied to play FRITZ with different variations >>of boycott. > >That didn't have anything to do with Deep Blue. IIRC it was about the decision >process, ie. involving the players in discussions about allowing Fritz to >participate in the first place, and the "sanctity" of national championships. > >>3) The resolution of FIDE about machines in top event and also team >>championships. > >That's not related to Deep Blue either. Since playing chess isn't a lucrative >business except for the very best, I suspect that more than a few grandmasters >found that being replaced by programs wasn't going to improve that. If the >decision came after the Dutch championships, which I can't remember, then that's >another factor, ie. not punishing the GMs ratingwise that refuse to play >computer programs. At the time it looked as if the frequency of program >participation was going to increase, so it seems logical to make rules. There >wasn't any rules there in the first place AFAIK. They became conservative due to >the reasons above I imagine. > >>Mathematically we still have no 100% but we have _more_ than "absolutely" >>nothing. ;) > >It's important to keep barely related matters separated. One thing is believing >or disbelieving the accomplishments of Deep Blue and the impact it had. Another >is making it responsible for all subsequent decisions involving computer >programs. You'll need a bit more than this to make your claim credible. But >barely anything is better than absolutely nothing :-). > >Regards, >Mogens I just wrote to Guy that psyche is most important in chess. What I wanted to elaborate are the interdependencies of such events like DB2 in 97, the Dutch Ch. and then the FIDE resolutions or non-resolutions if you prefer. Now, it's impossible to "prove" it but then it was a stimulation for your own thought processes as a reader. By far I want to be the one who will dominate a certain singular theory. On the other side I wouldn't accept that I had to keep my mouth shut until I could "prove" all ideas with mathematical exactitudiness. ;) 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.