Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 06:00:19 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 07:00:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 29, 2003 at 22:30:38, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>Negative. He is paid because he is strong, _the_ strongest. That's what is >>wanted. That is what is hired. His reputation is on the line. > > >That is wrong and I can prove it. Kasparov is possibly the strongest human chess >player _against_ other human players, although I doubt it because Kramnik is >stronger, but this is not the question here. It's true that Kasparov is very >strong against other human players in human chess. But he's not the strongest >player against computers! Simply because his lack of self-control. Pulling faces >is both impolite and against the known chess ethic. Perfectly blithering, Rolf. >No matter how authentic it >might be in the eyes of the spectators. And more - against computers it's >_absolutely_ worthless! > >The sole reason for Kasparov being the most wanted partner in computer chess >show events is the intention to make the public believe that the strongest human >player is automatically the strongest computer opponent - which is provenly >false! > > > > >>His reputation >>suffered badly from DB2. If he throws games, then he has dishonored his >>contract, his principles, his reputation and his soul. That's just not >>happening with this guy, IMO. > >I didn't say that he throws games. Yes you did. You said he tossed a safe win (f4) to keep the match interesting. That would be "throwing" a game. You contradict yourself. >Keep your data straight, please. But it's >true that all show event partners among human chess players have 'helped' the >programs to win some points - from the beginning on of such show events. > >Here is a sentence nobody can deny: > >====If it's true that only now the commercially available chess programs are >strong enough to win games against the best humans, then how could it happen >that already 30 years ago the first programs and board computers won points?=== The "if" statement here returns a FALSE. So your conclusion "code" would never be executed and is therefore irrelevent. > >Please explain that fact! How could it happen if the human chessplayers didn't >help? With strength alone that could never have happened because the first >programs were stupid as hell. But again prove me wrong. I wait for your answers. > > > > > > >> >>IBM took a risk in hiring the strongest guy in the world to play their monster. >>They gambled and won. You can bet he was not throwing games then. The >>situation is the same. He has something to prove. > > >What should he have to prove? That he is the strongest chess player, period, regardless of who is the opponent. >We are not talking about human chess. We are >talking about computerchess. And there he is definitely NOT the best opponent, >perhaps the best partner - in economical terms of business, yes. > >And a final sentence you can't deny too: > >===Why could Kasparov prove what he's worth in chess (computer version!) if he's >now playing a program that is factor x plus a dozen aspects WEAKER than DB2? How So you admit it. DB2 was the strongest program. To answer your question, it is a matter of public perception. Junior is the current Computer world champion. GK will want to establish his superiority over the "strongest" computer competition. See? Very simple. >could a little boy prove that he was stronger than me, if I hit him a bloody >nose and he _then_ began to pester my little baby sister?=== > >Please make sure that you use strictly logical arguments in your response. :) > > >Rolf Tueschen > > > > > >> >>Regards, >>Matt
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.