Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:53:50 06/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2003 at 13:27:09, maria clara benedicto wrote: >great post. > >but does it really matter? > >y dont we just enjoy what we have. Lost in Space We Have nothing But Ourselves, Maria! May this little poem make your day like it did mine. Cordially, Rolf > > >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.