Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:50:11 06/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2003 at 05:38:03, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 20, 2003 at 05:20:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Computer Chess came out of the science "computer sciences". Later scientists and >>becoming scientists came together and made a little tournament with their >>machines. They found rules that were enough for them - because they were >>basically scientists, so never they would have cheated each other. They had a so >>called gentleman's agreement about possible cheats. >> >>Now let's stop the historical summary for a moment of thought. >> >>As I wrote computer chess has no inborn rules against cheating. More, it is >>technically impossible to prevent cheatings. As long as scientists are >>participating that is no big problem, but what happens if people participate who >>simply have no idea what science is? We get a real problem. All kind of private >>routines are presented with their private results although that can't be >>accepted as scientific procedures. The answer is, privately we can do what we >>want, science is for labs. This is a gross misunderstanding. Simply because back >>through the bathroom window these same people claim that their results have >>validity. But that exactly implies science because without certain exact >>procedures you can't get validity of your data. So that is leading you into a >>deadly circle. >> >>Scientists get their income from scientific institutions. Look at Bob who gives >>his Crafty for free but who gets enough money as Professor. Now we have certain >>people without such an income who therefore use business technology. Now where >>is the scientific control here? As you know software in general is a fine >>medium. Errors are called bugs and sold as if - they had no bugs, but if they >>have, the users give precious feedback for the business companies. In short >>there is no scientific control whatsoever. Brilliant for the business companies. >>They are mainly amateurs (and Christians in the majority) who do a charity job >>for the million users. The products (programs) are tested by - again - amateur >>testers. So all without validity. All without a way to complain if something >>goes wrong. >> >>Can you follow me what I mean if I say that non-scientists, amateurs and charity >>people sell something that we should NEVER expect scientific reliability? Not to >>speak of validity. Excuse the many scientific terms. >> >>Can you also follow me that if such amateurs want to make money, NB that >>Kasparov or Amir Ban got thousands of dollars for their show event meant as PR >>action for the ChessBase program Junior, that then they must create a bit of hot >>air, they must "make a little cheat" about the content of the box they are >>selling? Of course they must say that Junior is GM!! Since Kasparov said it. Of >>course they must shout, that the original engine that played KASPAROV IS IN THE >>BOX!! If they didn't they were bad amateurs or - - well, just scientists. But >>since they aren't all is kosher. >> >>Look, when I bought Fritz 8 I suffered of the same mental attack all the Junior >>8 customers suffered from, I believed that I could finally use the new feature >>with the 3D pieces. I did NEVER think about my old PC who simply had not the >>modern graphics which were necessary to be able to profit from the new features! >>The same with Junior 8. Against Kasparov the prog ran on extremely expensive >>hardware. Obviously nobody around has such a machine. So by force nobody can use >>the exact program that played Kasparov. But that was exactly what the PR of >>ChessBase told us. But for real computer freaks - is that a surprise?? Is that a >>cheat?? Of course NOT. Since we are totally out of science. > >The fact that nobody has the hardware does not mean that nobody can use the >exact program that played kasparov. > >If the same program can run on slower hardware then it means that people can get >the same program and expect it usually to play the same moves if they give it >enough time. Astonishing that you make that mistake. The indeterminism by parallelism is still leading to a non-comparable situation if you let time pass on you 1-processor machine. Rolf > >Uri
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.