Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:02:38 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 00:14:34, martin fierz wrote: >On October 24, 2002 at 21:18:52, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On October 24, 2002 at 17:33:05, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On October 24, 2002 at 09:12:50, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On October 24, 2002 at 08:05:41, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>I mean which result would be DEFINITE/FINAL/LAST etc. indicator, that computer >>>>>is better than best human in chess. >>>>>10-0? 20-0? 40-0? And may be human mated in under 30 moves in each game? Should >>>>>be quite clear then for most, if not for all. >>>>> >>>>>Jouni >>>> >>>>Why do you ask? No human world champion calibre player has ever lost 10-0, or >>>>even come close to losing 10-0, much less 20-0 or 40-0, so what's the point of >>>>even asking? >>> >>>umm, you are young my friend :-) >>>too young to remember the candidate's matches which the one and only bobby >>>played and won 6-0, against players who were also "candidates", meaning world >>>champion calibre players. >> >>Just a short correction without entering the thread. You are making the same >>mistake, Ingo Althöfer made. > >i beg your pardon?? >ingo calls deep thought 2 deep blue because IBM insisted on renaming it. when it >is completely clear that it is the same machine which was called deep thought 2, >and far from anything deep blue / DB2 were later... i totally agree with you >that ingo's take on this is absurd. but: > >>You identify label and real content. Larsen or >>Taimanov never were "world champion calibre". >this is just a question of definition. how elitist do you want to be in your >definition? you seem to be thinking: >"world champion calibre" <=> is or was world champion once > >i think: >"world champion calibre" <=> is "relatively close" to the world championship. >larsen made it to the candidate's semifinal. taimanov to the quarterfinals. both >were top ten players in 1971, larsen even world number 3 for the whole of >1970... > >http://www.chessmetrics.com/PL/PL39950.htm >http://www.chessmetrics.com/PL/PL22334.htm > >for me, that is definitely good enough to be called "world champion calibre". >if you want a more strict definition of the term, fine. but you cannot force me >to adopt your definition :-) > >aloha > martin Perhaps this helps. Larsen is a good and easy example. But don't shoot me I'm just the reporter! Larsen was someway an idol of my student years. He played some sensational tournaments and was in the Interzonals on top. I hoped that he could go for the title but it was impossible. Reason is very easy to understand. He simply always lost to Tal and/or Spassky. He was simply weaker than these players - with their Russian chess school education. Larsen wasn't a scientific player. He was more a romantic dreamer. In tournaments he won many games with out-dated openings simply because the opponents were surprised. Larsen was very creative. But he was outplayed by the named players in matches because he could not beat them in say odd Queen-Gambits. These Soviet players had analysed that Larsen was only a normal player when the romantic aspect had been taken out of play. He lacked exactly what never was a problem for Bobby Fischer! Fischer was the only player outside the imperium of the Russian chess school who had studied all aspects of chess and was familiar with and could handle it in a creative manner. He was made out of champion stuff. Larsen was only dangerous if he had his play. Larsen is a symbol of the individualistic approach to chess with less than absolute manical dedication (difference to Fischer!) and so he was inferior to the well educated allround talents of URS. Larsen had already enough difficulties to beat Portisch who played that 'kill all romantic style' but was not so perfect as Spassky or Tal. Let me show the aspect where computer chess is involved. More than once I explained that a machine with certain constant weaknesses could be easily mastered although it played extra class chess in certain other parts of the game, say opening books, tactics and then technical endgames. Because humans have that special talent to discover and exploit the few weaknesses. Humans are not stupid and try to win against the strengths but they exploit the weaknesses. (Of course that can be counter-influenced with enough money! See the exhibitions with Kasparov and Kramnik. Kramnik demonstrated both sides. The exploitation and the acting as the ignorant.) All that is only true for events over a certain time extension. In a single game that might not be possible because the constant weakness might not even be detectable. But I'm not interested in what is practically do-able but what is possible and not to heal by the computer chess side. Or by tweakings or cheatings. And the whole discussion about definitions what is cheating can't change the truth. Humans try to hide the truth that machines often play like childs. Exhibitions are made to pretend that childs played like Nobel prize winners. And if all fits together it really looks like this. But all that is not interesting. There must be somewhere a standard or base from where it's judged what is really going on beyond all cheats and impostering. Therefore I want to thank you for your confirmation about Althöfer where you took great risks in saying the truth. Because for mathematicians the definition of a thing is already the proof for the existence of a thing... Althöfer is related to the Chessbase & CSS connection. Look how he's recompensated for his recent "engagement" for "Fritz". He gets the occasion to write an article about the draw in the 6th game. As if Ingo had found out something himself... So he is rehabilitated as great mega super CC expert. But how could that be true if he can't even understand the basic difference between a label and a real thing. :) For ChessBase & CSS (like all business companies) only titles count. Therefore Nunn, Irazoqui and Althöfer. Or also titles in sports. Therefore Marco Bode (!) the soccer player or Klitschko, the boxing brothers. Or Schily the politician. Deutschmann the cabaret artist. For ChessBase's Friedel even a burning space station Mir is offering splendid synergy effects. A real spin doctor is never fully satisfied even if his favorite label is on every single sheet of toilet paper... 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.