Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:02:33 06/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2003 at 08:28:27, Marc van Hal 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. >> >>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. You should try to read better. I said it came out of science. Today it'S in the hands of amateurs& gamblers. See Kasparov vs Junior. > >Because sience is something wich can be proofed by facts Nope, this is wrong. You can give evidence but one single fact can disprove a theory. > >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 . > On my first try of a homepage Thorsten Czub created the background and he added the balloons. But this is history. Suddenly Thorsten decided to become GOOD friends again with people he earlier called "crazy" and he refused to upload my new ideas. At that moment I started pages on my own. Friendship in CC ist almost impossible with the kids. :) Rolf >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.