Author: José Carlos
Date: 00:21:17 10/15/02
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 You have to make a difference between science and sport/competition. Chess players are sportmen/competitors, and chess tournaments are competitions. When you do scientific research (in CC), you focus on algorithms and heuristics, but when you compete, you want to win games. Kramnik, Kasparov, Topalov, Shirov, they all play to win games (which includes moving fast in zeitnot, preparing killing lines in openings, etc). They have to, because their earnings depend on it. Remember when Benko had to wear sunglasses to prevent Tahl hipnotizing him! And when Fisher didn't do the strongest move, that he had written down on the scoresheet, because Tahl and Petrossian where laughing at the move! I guess Bob is more concenrned with research, while Frans or Ed are more concerned with competition. Nothing wrong with that. After all, we all need money to live. We chose a way (or the way choses us!) and walk it the best we can. José C.
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.