Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:23:25 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 04:53:24, Sean Empey wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 00:38:17, George Wilson wrote: > >>Wow he beats the Micro's anytime he wants to! Once even played 5 computer >>simultaneously and won all five game and was blindfolded!!! > >Why all the Vincent bashing? He is an excellent chess player and has worked hard >developing a strong chess program and developing his own game. Egos are a part >of anything competitive like chess programming. He may be a little harsh in his >posts, but I believe that's what keeps chess programming exciting. Talking a >little trash and competing with fellow enthusiasts is part of the game. He truly >loves this field and you can tell by his dedication. If you ask Vincent for help >he will offer it. He has helped me and my ability to develop my program >extensively. Thanks for the good question! But do you really like to get a profound answer? I beg you to open your mind, this is _not_ a personal affair, a bashing or something, what Bruce insinuated, without content. This is about logical reasoning, something very important in any science, so also in computer sciences. Computer chess is just a part of it. Of course there is always the "ego", but then this is so self-understood that it almost makes no sense to state it. So let's better stick to the 'logical reasoning' for a moment. And don't worry, I may use the somewhat personal level for a little argument, but exactly here you may be able to understand that it's basically by no means a "personal" problem. This is looking a bit confusing, but in the end it should become clear what is meant. So, on the personal level of computer chess we happen to have one person who once was two times World Champion. It seems as if people tend to forget the record! Now please look, this person happens to be a real academic in computer sciences. That means, that this person is also an expert in a certain range of mathematics. Satistics for all included. So here you have both sides. The proof of sportive success and scientific education. The point of importance is now, that we have the sort of "soap opera" that a very talented chess programmer goes into fighting mode against our expert above, and on topics, that are certainly in the competence of our expert, and with variations of ideosyncratic logical reasoning, that simple doesn't hold water. Simply because basic laws of logical reasoning are constantly violated. And I agree, this is motivated by a big ego. But - - do you see now the core of the argument? Is all that now a question of personal things or is it a question of science and experience? What I want to explain is the fact that a logical fault is surely personally motivated, but the fault remains part of science and therefore we can criticise it and correct it. And if it's about very basic stuff, almost beginner's stuff in science, and if it is nevertheless proposed with great loudness, then it is perhaps not the absolutely best way to show one's astonishment, but if the same behaviour is shown repeatedly, then even laughing or irony should be allowed, which is also part of a peer group! What you expect, propose and wish is basically the impossible, namely that faults in logic and scientific reasoning should be accepted in computer chess because people were so nice and motivated and lovely. And that someone who knows the truth (scientifically spoken) of the actual problem should take care that he's not too loud in his announcements. This is plain nonsense! In every school or science department you are not allowed to talk nonsense, just without thinking, only with the excuse that you have the biggest car or the best score in whatever. Nonsense remains nonsense and we should be happy that we have members who are able to tell the truth. Now I ask you, the readers, what is wrong with the typical American method to personalize a complicated problem, and simply take someone to task for what he himself had told us? That alone can't be defined as bashing, even ironizing the situation, because the outcome is so clear, is not bashing someone, who did also a sort of bashing, in particular the bashing of a complete science, with the basic logic included! Is it so difficult to see the differences? The motivation of those who attack Vincent is _not_ fed by unallowed personal vices but by the correct knowledge of logic and science. The irony is that even Vincent should be thankful that someone so educated gave him the necessary corrections. Please also read http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?276875 where I tried to explain why someone so talented in computerchess might still be writing illogical messages. I would like to add a general remark related to computerchess. For someone who is connected with computerchess just because he plays chess and uses the commercial programs as partners and training aid, a certain trend to fantasize is not to be overseen. If it's about the particular strength of progs in relation to the strength of the best human players or if it's about the problem of fair play in so called matches between famous human players and programs, I observe enough lack of style, yes, ideosyncrasies. I made the point several times. The reason for the seemingly GM strength of the machines is the incorporated book material. So that is the reason why only the best GM are a real challenge today. But at the same time it is true that the book preparation itself is the problem for computerchess since only the best human players are able to create something new. So by definition they will keep their advantage over the machines. Apart from this aspect it is clear, and that will remain so for several decades, all the progress in depth can't cure a principal illness of the machines. Their inborn blindness. No matter how big. A smart human player will always be able to exploit that blindness. If he has enough time to adapt to the new levels of development in computerchess. This will remain until chess is solved completely. The romantic aspect in the whole question derives from the delusion that lies in the question of motivation, recompensation and fighting spirit of the human players side. But the principal question is fully answered already. No matter of how many tricks computer chess operaters may use, their play will be limited and calculable for the best human players. The computerchess ideologists should understand that in the long run it becomes boring if we concentrate solely on that aspect of exhibition matches. There will come the time, Bruce said it time ago, when such challenges become boring because machines will win because humans see no reason to make the complicated preparation. Since computerchess is NOT human chess at all. So the consequence should be IMO that we begin to think about restrictions! We must solve this question how we could change the setting to have interesting (fairer) competition with _more_ human players. But this is only possible with the reduction of books and endgame tables. If we don't change our routine computerchess will vanish into a tiny circle of outlandish people with very ideosyncratic (!) preferences and logic. Is it exactly that what you want who are defending Vincent against Bob? :) Kind regards, 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.