Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Computer chess & Fairy tales about *Chess*

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 05:28:20 10/07/02

Go up one level in this thread


On October 07, 2002 at 08:01:44, Otello Gnaramori wrote:

>On October 07, 2002 at 06:45:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>As always let me make some short and sharp remarks.
>>
>>Computer chess is the simulation of chess. While the opening moves and the last
>>technical endings can be played with perfection, the simulation is still far
>>from its optimum in the middle game.
>>
>
>This was already known, Rolf , comps are still behind the top players , the real
>question is : How much time will be necessary to beat regularly the best
>players?
>
>>What Vladimir Kramnik has shown with his masterpiece, the second game, is the
>>unpleasant truth, we should never forget. Machines have no understanding for the
>>beauties of chess.
>
>Obviously they don't understand , they are machine , but to beat the majority of
>human players the understanding is not strictly needed.
>
> Either they play with perfection, because the solution is
>>already there,or they play like a newborn kid.
>>
>>The confusing of a training tool with a genuine chess player is the reason for
>>the speechless amazement of many computer chess lovers. But would they be as
>>astonished if I would present a "philosopher" with the implementation of the
>>complete Encyclopedia Britannica and tried to enrol "him" in Harvard or in the
>>peace conferences at the Lake of Geneva?
>
>I can cite some experts systems that make diagnosis as good as the best medical
>doctors...

Yes,but then such processes have nothing in common with arts? Therefore I gave
the philosopher as example and not the engineer.


>
>>
>>If you are absolutely determined to participate in human chess, although the
>>mainpart of chess is far from being solved, you must not be surprised if a good
>>human chess master is reveiling the nature of the whole fantasies from time to
>>time.
>>
>>Because you can fool chess amateurs with the mere superiority of complete
>>opening dictionaries, you can also fool chess masters from time to time, if they
>>go for some as-if in the 19th century excursions into the land of combinations,
>>but you won't be able to always fool the best chess thinkers, or let me better
>>say chess artists.
>
>Many GM's have been fooled by comps...included a certain Garry Kasparov.

Because they had false ideas about the computer.


>
>Because they don't need bad books or certain ideosyncratic
>>weaknesses of the machines, because they feel and understand the myst of the
>>imperfect simulation and then sure they have the necessary technique for a
>>challenge over the whole game, and not only some isolated parts amateurs are
>>familiar with.
>>This is the explanation for the actual situation of computer chess with all the
>>problems the programmers of the super computer software already had in the 80's
>>until DB2 in 1997. As I predicted since 1997, the human chess masters have
>>understood the message of the old trick with the traditional secrecy. Because
>>without a feeling for the "architecture" of someone's "chess" there is no way to
>>prove the human superiority in five or eight games. But if you have it, then one
>>or two games are well sufficient. As Kramnik proved yesterday.
>
>Let's wait for the end of match before further judgements...

Oh no, you can't do that. From now on Vlad will do his best to please the
sponsors. I mean this is not about winning! This is about getting many thousands
of dollars for free.

Here are the odds:

If I lose I get 600 000 $$$$
If I draw I get 800 000 $$$$$$$
If I win I get  1 million $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and I'll leave many deceived computer
chess enthusiasts and PR agents behind me.

Now let's see. We have here a typical Monty Ha___________ NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me, I was just trying to do it again...

Take care

Rolf Tueschen


>
>w.b.r.
>
>Otello
>
>
>>
>>(Please nobody should feel offended - personally. Those who never dreamed in the
>>categories of the hyperboles of PR were no target of the 'mathematical' proof.)
>>
>>
>>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.