Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:11:37 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 13:36:51, Sally Weltrop wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 09:13:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 08:08:55, David Dory wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2003 at 06:48:54, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 16, 2003 at 03:27:07, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>>> >>>>>Will, >>>>> >>>>>Good article. If we were as talented as Mr. Kasparov we too would take monetary >>>>>gain for our talent. The only thing wrong with Garry is his enormous ego. Maybe >>>>>he will mellow with age. >>>> >>>>How can you say such a nonsense. There is no sane human being without a strong >>>>Ego. >>> >>>I believe his point was that Kasparov's ego is too self-centered and self >>>aggrandizing. Generally lacking in humility. >> >>Thanks but that was what I saw my self, but _still_ my statement is correct. >>Talking about levels of ignorance. :) >> >> >>> >>>>The problem with Kasparov is not his Ego but his habit to spread lies. The >>>>problem is neither his money greed, how could it be if it's the base of the >>>>American Way of Life? >>> >>>Greed is NOT the American Way of Life, Comrade Rolf. Opportunity, including for >>>yourself, naturally, is. I can't tell you how tiresome it is having Germans, >>>etc., tell us about the American Way of Life. :( >> >>I fear, you need a good optician, Dave. :) >> >> >>> >>> >>>> The real problem of Kasparov is his lying about "Science". >>> >>>Garry doesn't talk about "science", he talks about chess, which is more properly >>>classed as a "sport", "game", or even "art". >> >> >>From whar dic did you quote that? What are your own thoughts, Dave? And about >>optics again? Please re-read what he said before you start lecturing about >>chess. Also: if you think that I am trying to be nasty, then please be confirmed >>that I am not. It's just the deception because of your depthless opinions that >>can't hold water. It's such a waste of energy. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>You will not find a college science course in chess, in any reputable school. >> >>You simply miss the point here. Again read what is siad and then start to think, >>only then start to reason against trivial quotes I made. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>>The development of the Ego is never the character deficiency itself. Strong Ego >>>>does not mean big Liar. Perhaps we can better understand what 'Lying' means if >>>>we introduce the basic stupidity in general. Our human stupidity is infinite in >>>>its dimensions so to speak. So most lies are in truth ignorance. Stupidity marks >>>>the exact boundaries of our individual ignorance. Or the other way >round. 'Lies' >>> >>>Just because you don't have anything smart to say, you don't have to introduce >>>the "psycho-babble", here, please! >>> >>>>is always a term of higher levels of _less_ ignorance. NB also highly >>>>intelligent humans are infinitely ignorant, still less stupid than lazy pupils >>>>but perhaps bigger liars. Remember: 'lies' is only detectable with 'less' >>>>ignorance in respect to a specific realm. [To be able to understand why >>>>differently big ignorances still are all infinite in their dimensions, please >>>>consult the theories of Prof. Aleph in Higher Mathematics.] >>>> >>>>'nough said to explain why yours truly as a normal mortal is able to prove why >>>>the chess genius Kasparov is spreading lies about Science. Only on this >>>>microscopically small field I can take Kasparov to task. >>> >>>Showing a microscopically small level of common sense. >>> >>>DB is dead and buried, years ago. GK is NOW promoting, or commenting about his >>>latest match with DJ. >>> >>>Even if the computers were an equal match, the current situation is always our >>>vantage point to perception, ie., the rock that comes crashing through your >>>bedroom window TODAY will be perceived as more threatening than a similar rock >>>that came crashing through your bedroom window 10 years ago. Because your POP, >>>or Point Of View is the present time-frame, not 10 years ago. >> >>Good picture wrongly applied. >> >>Note, I was talking about basics of science. It makes no sense to rant. It >>wasn't me who called the DJ show event science. It was Kasparov. You forgot it >>already? Then you should consult - no, sorry, just joking. :) >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>Kasparov wrote that IBM 1997 was no science because he had no records of the >>>>event. Here is the first stupidity. As I could prove the event wasn't scientific >>>>because the IBM team of Deep Blue 2 spoiled their own research because instead >>>>of measuring their machine they suddenly measured the human player's psyche >>>>after confusional attacks. But that was never intended to do and visible the >>>>team had a big hole at the place of the necessary psychologists. If disruptive >>>>factors dominate the event the intended research is garbage. But Kasparov is not >>>>correct if he says that there was no record. I agreed and wrote that the record >>>>was not authentic, at least technically not assured in real time [what Ken >>>>Thompson supervised was already a print], but the then authorized output was >>>>published even on the Internet. So it is a big lie if Kasparov still claims that >>>>there are no outputs only because he had not been personally addressed. It's the >>>>other way round. Because the scientists did not care about the question of >>>>documentation of the machine's processes [perhaps impossible through the >>>>parallelism of the hardware design itself!], therefore there was no Science in >>>>the event. >>>> >>>>Now after the actual show event Kasparov simply denied the advantages of Deep >>>>Blue 2 and thought that he could "handwave away" the 100x factor advantage by >>>>the argument that chess were an infinite process. Here I am also a bit less >>>>stupid than Kasparov thanks to my education in logic. Kasparov claim is futile >>>>because also a chess genius does NOT touch the sphere of the infinite when he >>>>makes his concrete calculations or decisions based on his experience. >>> >>>And since GK can NOT touch the sphere of the infinite when he makes his >>>calculations, he sees the possible combinatorial possibilities as infinite. >>>It does make sense. You see an ocean, rolling on over the horizon. You know the >>>ocean is not infinite, but it's a hell of a long swim to the mailbox on >>>Galapagos Island! >> >> >>Very good picture again. Wrongly applied - again! >> >>GM chess - what does that mean? Exactly this: of course you must be able to make >>deep calculations i certain moments but you have the experience from human chess >>history and make your decisions, that no comp could cope with on the actual >>depth of his calculations. That is the truth. Now the question is [also in the >>Weak-Chain debate with Bob] if it is so difficult to find specific comp related >>variations of human chess so that comps would be helpless. I say: piece of cake. >>Kasparov and his fellows don't want to lose their future income and wave their >>hands and say, I had a terrible accident and lost my chess memory (Kramnik; see >>at http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/topsecret.html), > >funny link. I for one think the money issue HIGHLY clouds the issue of the real >integrity of these matches. Do not give anyone a dime from the get-go. Have a 15 >game series with $100,000 per win, big fat 0 for a loss , & $50,000 for a draw, >no friendly draws,play them out. This will certainly make the player perform >with integrity. Not like the last 2 events where they both tied and "Hey, you >know what, we can have another match and so and so on ... perpetuating the ruse >and the GM's laughing all the way to the bank and the real issue of who is >better is pushed aside for commercialism. In the commercial future of show events we will see a similar procedure because who will play for a beer? Sure, unknown GM from Russia would play for one or two games because they get ChessBase8&Fritz8 (plus Shredder7) for free. That was it what I saw several weeks ago on the ChessBase server in Germany. Nothing official and operated by a very motivated operator of Shredder. Ok, perhaps it was an event to motivate the operating scene... Here we had the implied question if DJ is "better" than DB2 or now the question if DJ is a Super-GM. For 1 million US$$ I would admit that I was married with Garry Kasparov for a couple of days! I think at least we two agree so far. How come that you dare to think this way about commercialism here in CCC? Or did the Germans engage you for the next battle in the "Teutoburger" Forest (against the "Romans")? ;) 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.