Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:55:42 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 19:01:56, martin fierz wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 07:02:38, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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! > >i must admit that i do not know too much about these "old" players myself, being >"only" 31. i will agree with you though that larsen probably never could have >made it to world champion. but i will still call him world champion calibre >because he made it to the top 3. >anyway, the question of russell was more about the likelihood of a x-0 score in >a match ever happening. and if it can happen to the world number 3, then it can >happen to the number 1 to IMO. obviously fischer was much better (as is clearly >witnessed by his 6-0 wipeout), but nobody would ever have epxected this kind of >result beforehand, just as russell does not expect it ever to happen. but it has >happened, and it can happen again :-) > >>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. >i have never been interested in titles or labels as you call them. if somebody >says something wrong i don't have a problem pointing it out :-) >besides, i honestly don't see where i take a risk in saying what i said. Just a short note to end the debate. Risk not in a strict sense of justice. But as part of the memory of a peer group. The reasons are simply that academics who do some hobby expect to be out of reach of profane critic. It's a pity when they don't realise that they have very earnest holes in their general scientific education. That does often happen with mathematicians who have their lift-off already in the early twenties. So, it's a pity from my view that they don't take questions as important feedback. Then later after they climbed the academic ladder higher and higher, they simply couldn't confess that they are just experts in small fields. Now if that happens with a general habit to like reflections in many different fields, a general weakness of mathematicians, the result can be of the kind as it happened here in the question of the alleged Deep Blue. It's an unnecessary nonsense. The point is that you get no longer honest feedback once you are a professor. Because people fear that they could be proven wrong and socially blamed for even daring to criticise a professor. And then you have that circle of the devil. ROCHADE and CSS print everything from Ingo, no matter what a nonsense it is. But nobody would tell him his opinion. See the last gig when he let masters play with notebook. Ingo had decided that Black should always use a notebook! Of course the Russian expert, one with _real_ experience, still won the match although he had a weaker Elo than the young German. Now what exactly Ingo was testing?? Completely unknown. But don't ask him! (A couple of years ago Ingo even claimed that he - as The Boss - would make Deep Blue 2 much stronger! As you know: "Bescheidenheit ist eine Zier, doch weiter kommt man ohne ihr.") :o) Rolf Tueschen > >aloha > martin
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.