Author: Jim Bodkins
Date: 11:59:34 06/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2003 at 13:53:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Hang in there Thorsten. :) I feel the same way about CB actually. I dont mind large companies (I dont really mind microsoft as long as they develope competatively rather than just buying the competition). But large companies that just buy the competition are doomed. (Is Morsch listening? Is Kalen-Mayer looking for yet another home?). You can buy ALL the better engines you want to protect yourself. There WILL be one ... I will repeat that ... there WILL be one engine that will crush everything you have and replace every product you have purchased preemptively. That engine will bury you. :) Who would waste a single EURO on a second rate engine that plays weak chess by comparison. Your time is comming and it will be good for chess. :) I'm waiting .... and smiling. (I'm not a Fritz or Shredder or Junior hater, but I suppose I am a Fritz and Shredder and Junior hater. That is just too much like the NY Yankees for me. Sorry for what might be an obscure referrence). I enjoy CC, but to be honest I believe that CC is only meaningfull in engine matches or as a trainer. I honestly could care less if an engine can beat ... well anyone. I cant carry as many ... say bricks as a truck. Gosh, I guess I'm just "not as good" as a truck. What in the world does that mean? Can you open a can with .... hmmm .... your teeth? You cant? Loser! :) Obviously a can openner is better than you are. lol sorry, it just seems silly to me. Human vs Human is all that finally matters. Engines are usefull and fun but not as meaningfull. Even though I enjoy it. Just my opinion. Jim
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.