Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Show events ... (Lesson in Logic - Kasparov's Strength)

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 06:09:18 01/30/03

Go up one level in this thread


On January 30, 2003 at 09:00:19, Matthew Hull wrote:

>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.

Ok, I will also discuss with you although it's then in the second division only.



>
>
>>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.


Throwing a game is losing a game, if you don't mind?



>
>
>>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.

So? Also the first commercial progs were strong enough? Please do not choose
such a deep level here. Thanks.



>
>>
>>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.

Exception Kramnik to whom he lost a match. Period.



>
>
>>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.


See? Very simplicistic?

Rolf Tueschen

P.S. If I'm on vacations as a boy, the other boy could pester my little baby
sister and claim being strongest in town? Hehehe...


>
>
>
>>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.