Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:15:25 05/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2005 at 05:01:00, Walter Faxon wrote: >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, Please dont call me MP or President! Thanks. > >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. Yes, you are a very successful comedian. > >Here's a bit of science: And a scientist of great reputation! >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. And your point would be what? I for one did never speak about taking back the moves... You perhaps missed that. > >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! You also show a great class of sarcasm. But you are NOT talking about what I have written. Don't mind, you have all the right to write what you want, but please don't pretend that you are talking to me. Thanks. BTW I agree with you that swindle is part of the game in chess, in special among amateurs and coffeehouse gamblers. > >I'm just glad they don't do those kinds of things in Europe. > >-- Walter We have a lot of coffeehouses in Europe. Please dont be too surprised that I can't address your fine irony because of weaknesses in my English. I'm a German and if you could write something in German one day I will respond with a similar irony in my mother's language. But it's well possible that I won't do that out of simple politeness. Because I don't like to swindle. I'm not a gambler so to speak, excuse me.
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.