Author: Rick Terry
Date: 16:53:08 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 19:25:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 23:26:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>You keep bringing this up, so here's a challenge: >> >>Formulate a rule (or rules) governing opening book knowledge. The rule has to >>be fair >>to both players (computer and human) and the rule _must_ be enforcable or it >>will be >>useless. >> >>What would you like to see and why? >>\ > >First of all I know that I can't formulate such rules. I see you already in the >starting blocks to prove the impossibility. Just the same debate we had in the >topic about the prevention of cheating. > >Let me make a little proposal. Why we together couldn't find a solution? This is >not a court room. Why do you want to work against solutions? > >Another point: why is it so difficult to understand the strength of a concept >that says, let's find a solution for a honest CC. Without all the fishy tricks. >A ouple of hours ago I read a quote from Feng Hsu who said naively that chess >should well be about some secrecy on both sides... > >But I disagree. I hope you can follow when I say that you won't beat the >creativity of human players with all your machines. Yes? So why not accept that >you are not there to invent sophisticated tricks to beat human players with your >machines but that you should your work as scientists. I'm talking to you as well >as Hsu! > >Somehow it seems to me that you had a perverted understanding of science. > >You should develop machines that are sophisticated at chess, but not >sophisticated tricks to psych out human opponents! Tell me what you would reply. > >I think we must make a real ethical revolution in CC to stop that nonsense about >the dream that suddenly 1800 or weaker operators or programmers (I'm not talking >about you in person) could bet super GM just with the support of machines. That >is not the concept of CC I would prefer. Because then we are right back in the >middle of new cheats! I think Hsu made an beautiful unconscious confession. He >likes the secrecy and the tricks... > >But as we could see in Bahrain, the whole hyperbole is unbelievable. Because >Fritz can't play such positions yet Kramnik presented in games 1 to 4. And >probably DB2 wouldn't have done better. > >Let me make this very clear. Say, we had a really strong chess playing machine >in 20 years - - _then_ that monster would hopefully have a few tricks on its own >to play a match against the human Wch. Know what I mean? But today I do not want >to see one Hsu or one Friedel play such tricky games. That's ridiculous in my >eyes. So I hope I could make clear what I want. I do also dream of a fantastic >computer playing fantastic chess. But I detest tricky operators using some >tricks to psych out the GM. That might be real fun for them personally, but this >is not what I expected from scientists. > >Could we agree so far and find new solutions for definitions how machines should >be supported along the FIDE rules? Or is it impossible to talk with you because >you just prefer to fight the old stuff again when you were a young student and >had the impression that you had to find certain rules made on the CC level >alone. If you want to cooperate then you should think about the FIDE rules. And >then it's not really a help if you or other people try to define me as the >representative of some evil force who would like to harm CC... > >Rolf Tueschen I think you should seek Psychaitric Help you are a very confused indivisual!
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.