Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:28:50 06/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2003 at 06:24:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 20, 2003 at 05:50:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 > >I used the words usually. >I know that more than one processor may give sometimes slightly different >results(different hash tables may also lead to different results) but >if the evaluation is the same then I expect more than 90% of the >moves to be reproducable with enough time. But that is not 100% and that was your former implication and that of chessBase too BTW. 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.