Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 05:28:27 06/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >Look if I sold you a rocket to the moon and you bought it for your dreams about >farming on the moon and you run short of gasoline, don't call me if you are >frustrated. Without fuel no rocket did ever fly to the moon. Know what I mean? > >With the "GM Junior 8" we touch the sphere of day dreaming! Know what I mean? >there is no room for scientific reflections. It is all a question of "as if". > >Cheating is NOT cheating in the dream world of computer chess. > >So, we shoulkd let ChessBase off the hook. They are only "human" (Stefan >Giering). > > >;) > > >Rolf Tueschen > >P.S. > >Please all kind of popular software to my email address > >at rolftueschen@aol.com > >Thank you! > >zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt - I dream on --- You indeed used the word sience way to much especialy because computerchess is not sience yet. (And maybe never will) But a work in progress. Because sience is something wich can be proofed by facts By the way you did get these nice Luft balon with Junior 8 Lass man einmal so ein fliegen. (Sory for my bad german) Or was the not the end of 99 Luft balon? Not to talk about hot air balons . Maybe a fact that the mistake was made on purpose. he he Marc
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.