Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:49:55 07/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2002 at 06:29:13, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 16, 2002 at 05:52:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. > >The likelihood of an accumulation of negative impressions and experiences is a >possible explanation of the decisions made. However, not easy to validate and >not exactly evidence of anything in particular. And it's fair to point out that >your initial statement "They all agree with Kasparov that it wasn't DEEP BLUE2's >strength alone." is dubious at best, so I think Walker's objections where quite >accurate in that regard at least. You are absolutely right. Please take it for real when I write "stimulation". Far away form validation of course. Dubious then is more a misunderstanding. Because maths seems to amuse you positively let me add something. If I would pronounce that 10-2="7", would you react the same way and explain that this were "dubious"? For me, away from maths, you simply can never _prove_ something with 100% certainty. So, by force, all what is outside mathematics, _must_ be dubious. But what does it say? Nothing in the end IMO. :) Rolf Tueschen > >>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. ;) > >Of course not :-). > >Regards, >Mogens
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.