Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:06:57 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 19:22:14, martin fierz wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 13:54:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > > >>Objection. If you take into consideration that this case contained a chess >>position that was a draw due to 3-fold-perpetual. > >you are confusing things. i was *not* talking about anything that happened in >graz. i was talking about some basic abstract logic stuff. the debate started >over something that happened in graz, but that's also where graz ends in this >thread. Aha, I see. I knew that your main motivation was to somehow stop these debates about Graz. Now as a math expert you found a good reason by claiming that this is now pure and only logic, completely ripped of its original content. Fine. Content would only confuse things. Oh boy. This is exactly what shouldn't be done. But what math addicts want to do all over and therefore I watch them with attention. If they could they would jump into all possible topics and fields and find 'the logic' to become big experts in all these fields. In their minds. Without big knowledge of the specific content. No, excuse me, this is not how the world functions. And that is the reason why such math addicts end in a deaden street. John Nash. With your mathematical logic you enter the scene and claim "where is your President, I want to speak to Napoleon, subito!" For how long must I hold this lecture that we have certain problems where we can say - completely against logic - it is yes, but it can also be no? All you did was creating a problem where you can pretend that in your view it should be 'yes' when I said 'no'. If I had said 'yes' then you would have proved 'no' is right. And so on. > >>but in real you are the uneducated beginner who tried to bully Bob. >to educate you: it should be "in reality....". to educate you some more: bob is >quite capable of defending himself! Of course, but that was not the reason why I answered you. No need to educate me about your views. > >>Let me add that a lively debate is always fun, but you must not become insulting >>as if a computer scientist and computerchess knowie like Bob would make beginner >>faults. > >*everybody* makes stupid mistakes. some make more than others. but nobody is >perfect. bob has made mistakes before, he will continue to do so, and so will i, >and so will you. >if you want to build a shrine for bob and worship him every day, go ahead. i >don't believe in that kind of stuff... Also this is not what I was doing. The insinuation alone is your next insult. Insults that began with the elaborations of Johan and others. I forgot Amir. It is indecent to imply that someone who takes his job for serious, to the best of his students, could well leave the building like a businessman who's planning some PR on a short trip. Also making jokes about the depending on students' interests is a very short-sighted misbehaviour. Even more indecent the whole stuff becomes when I include the odd business interests in the whole event and that therefore the extension to two almost two weeks had been invented. You must imagine for a moment what is really going on in such a tournament. In a _real_ [= human] chess tournament beyond Blitz and such gamble we have hours for a single round because human beings try to make up plans and that takes some time. The beauties of chess lie in a 5 hour period. Now what is going on in such a WCCC? We see the authors [!!] of the programs on fantastic hardware [but not at all at the best available] who sit there for hours and they have just the following to do: they look at the display and try to move a piece as fast as possible following the program's orders. Most of all they have no clue what is going on on the board. They can't understand what a three fold is. I know what I'm talking about. Even as a good chessplaying amateur you have difficulties to compare the exact positions in your mind. If you could do it better you were a way better player and probably a master yourself. In short: this is an event where operators do their job like little robots but because it's a famous event they are sitting there for hours and faking importances that are simply not there. Normally they would all let their girl friends move the pieces ordered by the machine. There is simply no room nor allowance for anything apart from simply moving the displayed moves. Which is quite boring if by chance the operator is a good chessplayer and master. We had that with J. Zwanzger who allegedly plays in the Bundesliga and also Vincent D. who is an experienced Dutch master. In all these boring hours he has time enough to become in despair of the nonsense DIEP is playing again. In all that time he could also begin the year long hard work to optimize the program for the multi-processor machine. If he has no access to that machine most of the time he can also go gambling in the casino in GraZ. It makes no sense either! And now we have a clear violation of all these rules for operators. Jonny author is in heavy depression because his program is lost and a draw is near. And then the whole cheat began. Now we have a single question to answer: has the TD a way to avoid the draw or must he obey the rules of chess / computer chess? He decided for suicide (of the TD) and ordered 'play on'. Now Pascutto says that he wouldn't have decided this way. But, he adds, the resoning to that decision could well be reasonable. Bob and Rolf, from experience alone, say 'no way'. You cannot find a false decision with correct reasoning. Somewhere in the reasoning must be a mistake if you come to such a terrible result. End of the debate. Your mathematical crap is completely ok in the world of mathematics but this is not our real world. So yes, we can have your described cases. No difficulty. But only if you want to confuse the readers you claim such a nonsense in case of a debate about this decision for suicide by the TD. This TD is plain dead right now. And no Canadian doctors nor professors nor Wch in checkers could change that fate. > >>The same I oppose the nasty vocabulary Pascutto is using towerds Bob. >>Man, these are kids in comparison to such a legend like Bob Hyatt. > >science is a meritocracy. in computer chess, nobody cares how old you are, or >what titles you have. all you want to know is "just how good is the engine this >guy wrote?". GCP has written a chess engine which is probably better than >crafty. you call him a kid? well, in fact he is nearly still a kid as far as age >goes, *and* he has written an outstanding chess engine! i deeply respect both >bob and GCP as chess programmers. which doesn't mean i won't contradict them >when i feel like it, or that i automatically respect them when it comes to other >issues; e.g. i don't respect them as chess players. Objection. In the case of Thomas Mayer and QUARK I saw how fast it is possible to create a somewhat decent engine. But that doesn't mean that the author now is on the same creative level as Bob Hyatt. Even if his engine should play stronger than Crafty. You must not confuse all the aspects in such a comparison. And the factors in the problem. Look how GianCarlo is chicken out when he should perform in the coming online tournament. Because there the real Crafty is performing. The one with hopefully a minimum of tournament prep. Other than the public version that can be taken as training partner. Rolf >you are also contradicting me when you feel like it, although, by your >standards, you are a kid compared to me ;-) > >cheers > martin
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.