Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:48:34 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 09:22:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Nice, Rolf. I read the first few paragraphs but couldn't make myself read the rest. Sorry. Bob D.
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.