Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 07:58:52 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 09:09:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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? Picking nits? Taking a draw when a win (percieved win) is handy is throwing the game, Rolf. Don't try to squirm out of it now. > > > >> >> >>>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?=== From Grandmasters? In 1973? You are wrong. >> >>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. Not in the ego of GK. That is the point. The motives of GK. You claim money is corrupting the event when in fact, pecuniary interest demands that he smash the machine. You arguments are ridiculous, IMO. > > > >> >> >>>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.