Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:04:26 10/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2004 at 14:15:30, Pallav Nawani wrote: >On October 12, 2004 at 13:59:16, Álvaro Begué wrote: > >> >>>Agreed. But the hoax is when programmers think they are important in chess. How >>>could that be if they cant even play chess themselves? Well, most of them. >> >>And how does it matter if a programmer can play chess or not? In order to make a >>difference in the world of speed records a race car designer doesn't have to be >>a good runner. I think the simile makes sense. At some point humans won't be >>able to compete against machines at all, just like runner can't catch up with >>cars. But both runners and race car designers are in the speed business. > >But this is entirely besides the point. The question is, whether a race car >designer has a right to humiliate an athlete, just because his cars can go >faster? > >Obviously not. > >Can a race car designed run faster than an athlete? Obviously not. In that case, >*he* has no right to mock an athlete, after all, race cars will beat their >designers too, and the athlete will beat the designer too, so its really the >designer who is a patzer here. > >Pallav Thanks for the right logic applied. In case of Donninger (HYDRA) it becomes spooky. Talking about chess in Bilbao he wrote (in German in CSS forum) that analyses of the chess there wouldn't matter to him at all. That the move d3 of Hydra against Topalov were 'bad' that would be evident and the ONLY problem there would be 'how to tell' HYDRA to avoid it in future... Spooky, because what will Donninger do if the reason for such moves is the bad chess concept he had taught HYDRA? Chess is both, concept and singular moves. If you believed you could make a good chessplayer out of HYDRA by teaching singular moves you are following a delusion because this bad move d3 is part of the bad concept; but this _concept_ is the indicator of the overall chess strength NOT the singular move. Chrilly Donninger excused himself that he were no "Sigi" Freud. The psychoanalyst. But perhaps I can assist. To deminor a sensational chessplaying human GM like Ponomariov in a show [!!] event - which has been organised for the benefit of computerchess to be exact - is as such a very bad idea for a chessprogrammer who can't play chess. It's kind of suicidal so to speak. And that was the only warning that I had in mind when I wrote my message with the main address of the chessprogrammers here around. Personally I prefer people like Hyatt who speak with admiration about human GM no matter if their baby just has won or lost a series of games. What counts is the overall learning effect for the computer side. In short, the actual relation between human chessplayers and computerchess is not yet one where ordinary computer tech engineers like Donninger or Meyer-Kahlen could look down on chessplayers. Even if they win most games in future against GM. Because - - what is with the losses against good amateur players who can still win with ANTICHESS? A human GM would _never_ lose a game against such nonsense. Afterword: When I looked up the pics from the Bilbao event I was surprised by the hybris=lack of decency of the attending operators=programmers. Some players had some three bottles with water on the table but the operators had even one or two bottles more! Absolutely ridiculous because what had they to sweat for while waiting on the machine's moves? -
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.