Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A Blast from the past - Feng Hsu

Author: Matthew Hull

Date: 10:10:14 04/22/05

Go up one level in this thread


On April 21, 2005 at 17:10:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>On April 19, 2005 at 12:06:14, Matthew Hull wrote:
>
>>
>>There is no science issue.  There is only the psychological issue of those whose
>>cherished notion of human superiority in chess was severely bruised in 1997.
>>And those same persons have been in denial ever since.
>>
>
>
>Is that ex-cathedra or the truth?


You don't believe computer programs are as strong as top humans.  You have made
this assertion numerously.  You have also failed to backup this belief with
scientific evidence, i.e. recent top-human/top-computer results.  The reason you
don't do this is because the human/computer results favor computers.

Scientifically, you are in denial.  The DBII-Kasparov match is just one example
of your denial in action.

Kasparov LOST the match, fair and square.  Your quibbles over "cheating science"
are the same kind of scapegoating that amateur wood-pushers use when they
perform badly in their last weekend swiss.  Its human nature.


Now I will give you a lesson in psychology, since you seem to be so vastly
ignorant on the topic.

Kasparov has never been very good against computers.  Kasparov is so good
against humans because he has psychological "command presence".  He is
intimidating as a chessplayer.  He's very good at chess, but more importantly,
he is good at psychological gamesmanship.  But that is completely useless
against a computer program.  It is also mostly useless against ice-cold
chessplayers like Karpov.  That's why he had so much trouble defeating Karpov.

Karpov would have given a better match to DBII than Kasparov, because once
Kasparov realises he's got no psychological grip on the opponent, he casts about
for chess strategies that are unfamiliar territory to him, because they have no
psychological component with which he can work.  But Karpov does not have this
as a significant part of his strategy.  He is more purely calculating and
disciplined in his choice of play.

See how much you missed because you were in denial?  Next, we need to discuss a
regimen of therapy for you as a curative for your disorder.

:)




>Of course religious people deny science for
>the last two thousand years...



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.