Author: Walter Faxon
Date: 02:01:00 05/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2005 at 20:40:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 30, 2005 at 01:11:59, Walter Faxon wrote: > >>*** Or human. What this illustrates is that resignation should be eliminated >>from chess and all decisive games played out to checkmate. After all, even >>grandmasters can screw up completely won positions, and they sometimes do. >> >>No dignity in graceful acknowledgment of your opponent's better play, no; you >>must fight to the bitter end! >> >>Is your team allowed to "resign" when down 0-6 with one minute to play in >>soccer? No! >> >>Of course, this extra wasted effort would increase the odds in favor of the >>tireless machines. >> >>-- Walter :) > >What you are saying reveils very good the lack of class in computerchess. It's >as if chess would be raped. Chess is a gentleman's sport. You don't understand >why chessplayers give up in lost positions. They do so, because they both agree >in a gentleman's logic. If- they say - we BOTH continue to play like good >chessplayers, and we say that we are both good ones, THEN the result of the game >is clear after all what we know of this game - and we agree that we know enough >that the position itself doesn't hold any surprises. We do completely neglect >that one of us or even both would make silly mistakes which would in fact change >the expected result. We are both gentlemen and nobody wants to win games through >silliness if the position is clear. That is at least what gentlemen are saying. > >But computerchess people seem to miss that important point. Their logic always >goes like that: if by chance our opponent - who has a won position and the >machine can see it - becomes silly we have avoided a shameful loss. These people >don't even know that it's more shameful how they are behaving... > >NB that I'm not talking about ALL computerchess people. Bob for instance is a >symbol for that gentleman's attitude when he's well aware of politeness in >matches between his machine and human chessplayers. Bob is NOT a maniac who's >collecting points that he hasn't earned to win. That is why it's a real mystery >why Bob is defending hsu and team... > >My idea is that Bob stands a friend above a gentleman. But this not my ethical >base. A friend who made some mistake is STILL a friend, but then you are allowed >to criticise him, just because he's your friend and you are his friend. Perhaps >this is too European for Americans. Dr. Tueschen, The little smiley following my signature ":)" indicates an attempt at humor; in this case, irony. I was responding to your suggestion (in subsequently snipped text) that because Kasparov resigned in a position were he in fact had a difficult forced draw, the game should be effectively re-scored as a draw, presumably because that would be the "scientific" result. Here's a bit of science: In every decisive game of chess, subsequent analysis can often pinpoint the loser's final fatal mistake. Kasparov's mistake was in resigning. His resigning was a legal move, and it cost him the game! If he could take back that move, why not allow him to take back any move, take back the whole game, or the whole match? Why not? Because that is not how chess is played. And the most important aspect of the "science" in this human-computer chess match (as in all such matches) was in the actual result of the match. Yes, including all the silly mistakes. Which computers make too. ----- By-the-by, re the "gentleman's" sport of chess: In a serious game, have you ever heard of a human grandmaster refusing an opponent's resignation? Never? I guess it is because they all "lack class". Have you ever seen a human grandmaster continue in a clearly lost position, trying to "swindle" the opponent? Anyone who does that must want to "rape" chess. Shameful! I'm just glad they don't do those kinds of things in Europe. -- Walter
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.