Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 09:43:58 06/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2003 at 10:02:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. > If you don't have facts you can't have sience So I can not be wrong. But acording Einstein "A theory only can become sience When it can proven with practical tests". Marc >> >>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.