Author: maria clara benedicto
Date: 10:27:09 06/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
great post. but does it really matter? y dont we just enjoy what we have. On June 04, 2003 at 13:11:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 04, 2003 at 12:22:12, Cliff Sears wrote: > >>On June 04, 2003 at 12:05:49, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>computerchess is dead. >>> >>>nothing new under the sun. everything boring. >>>no new ideas. all ONE big company (how boring). >>> >>>It's like 40 years SED in the GDR, boring, boring , boring. >>> >>>I will switch the hobby ... >>> >>>fritz7, 8, shredder7, 8, junior 7,8 >>> >>>boring, boring boring. >>> >>>all the same user interfaces. all the same bugs in the chessbase >>>gui. >>> >>>it's really boring. >>> >>>why buying ?? >>> >>>chessbase monopol was the end of computerchess. >>>infinite power. infinite boredom. >>> >>>good bye. >> >>It does seem stupid to pay almost $50 and all you are getting is a new engine >>(and not a new updated GUI that you already have) > > > >Why stupid? > >In computerchess business that has a long tradition after CC had left science. >Normal would be to test something until the results are valid but SSDF tests >until the next dateline is arriving and then they present their data. Saying >that validity is unneccessary and that in the next publication the rest of the >test results is included. That spooky tradition has a simple reason. The >business is eager to get the listing in time when the next selling date comes >nearer. You get the idea: with invalid data you can prove almost everything. And >that again gives advantage to the company that arrived in time to be "tested". >It's a real Kuddelmuddel as we say in German. > >But if you say a word people become very angry because they only see the old and >traditional five or seven testers in Sweden who allegedly should be >discriminated. Of course it's the other way round. If someone tells them how to >test on a scientific base and what they simply cannot do in practice, then that >is _real_ worshipping. Openess in critics is friendship, hiding the scientific >truth is bullshit. Perhaps we should learn this phrase by heart! > >Normal would be to present a new update when something spectacular has been >reached. Something in chess! But reality is that too many people believe in >bugs. That is because they let autoplay instead of playing themselves against a >program. > >Normal would be to be honest about the real strength of computerchess programs. >But in CC it is tradition to always call the new update the best program ever, >mostly on the base of a recent WIN against a human super-GM who had been >bought=engaged in a show event. In reality everybody who plays decent chess does >know that chessprograms cannot play real chess yet. They have their strengths >but also their weaknesses. Now - by definition - in show events the human chess >Grandmasters are NOT engaged to play their normal chess level which included >"nasty" play. Nasty against computerprograms is by definition playing the >weaknesses of the machine. In tradition of CC however the GM is engaged to >"work-around" the weaknesses of the machine so that it appears as if the machine >could really play chess. > >Let me add a few ideas to this appearing of playing chess. > >To weak players (=clients who should buy a program) the programs seem to be very >strong because with their exact play for a certain strictly defined limitation >of depth the programs win every game against players who lose pieces and pawns >by mere oversights. Weaker players can't imagine that the genius of human GM is >mainly their memory and their exactness of calculating. But the real strength is >their genius in finding a way to solve any position no matter how deep it is. So >the two first talents guarantee that they keep up the pace and the third one is >for the winning execution. On the other side of the board it is the main >weakness of the machines that they are rather determined in their behavior. Ok, >they might vary in 27 aspects but what is the number 27 when a human GM has >thousands of such variations. And the moment a human GM has the chance to adapt >to the specific weaknesses of a machine, the main part of the execution is done. > >All this is so basic, so trivial, that one wonders why computerchess freaks >still believe in magic. Even the best programmers believe the de facto results >out of show events. So Amir does believe that Deep Junior is a real GM. > >The only solution for computerchess is science. It's a hard and frustrating >distance to go. But it doesn't help. Fakes cannot replace science. The GM won't >tell what's going on as long as they profit from the traditions in CC. > >============= > > >P.S. I took this message into CCC because the topic belongs into CCC. The thread >actually exists in CTF, the twin group of CCC, where someone (Ed Schröder, a >former CC World Champion) opened the question How could we make computerchess >interesting again in CCC... > > >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.