Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:24:15 05/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2005 at 20:31:28, Lar Mader wrote: >On May 05, 2005 at 12:15:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. > >Actually, he was addressing your arguments very directly. Let's see if you can judge about it... ==> >You continually try >to claim that game 2 shouldn't really have been a loss because Kasparov made a >mistake. The example of "taking back moves" isn't the point. The point is that >chessplayers make mistakes. Including Kasparov. And this is part of chess. >You seem to think that in this particular chess match this part of chess >shouldn't have been included. Strange. Somehow science shouldn't allow for >mistakes, or something. If you think that this is an example for straight reasoning, like scientists are used to do it, then you're way far away from the central point. Look please a bit closer - I did NOT for example claim that kasparov shouldn't have lost game 2. I didn't say either that Hsu et al "swindled" on kasparov. I never said that. What I was trying to say (apparently something that is too difficult to grasp in that scene) that Hsu and whoever else didn't win the game on chess. Kasparov was preoccupied with who was the machine and how it could play what it played. Kasparov was seriously believing from that chess he saw from the machine, that something went not koscher in game 2. In that confusion he asked questions and got no answer from the team other than that he must be mad or something... That was the real end of the match. Of course Kasparov continued to play because he would have lost the whole money if he had ended the whole show. I said Hsu didn't "swindle" on Kasparov. But what then he did? Easy question: Hsu violated his own rules in science that he couldn't validate any result for the machine if the result was caused by the teamsters through psyching-out the opponent. NOT because that were unknown in human chess but because the team confused human chess with this special variation of chess, namely machine vs man. Now people could say, what had this to do with anything we know from human chess? Does it matter if a player gets confused and loses games, is that anything the opponent should be worried about? Nope, not in human chess - BUT in human vs machine chess. Why? Easy again. Because the whole psyching doesn't come from the machine but from misbehaving operators or members of the machine's team. Period. How this could have been solved? By just talking and clarifying things. Of course Kasparov's oversight of the possibility with Re8 had cost him the point of game 2. But then he could have continued the match with his normal chess. > >Additionally, you continually claim that the Hsu or IBM or some part of that >team swindled Kasparov, and he directly addresses your falacy that this is not >part of grandmaster chess. See above how I see this. "Swindled" Kasparov is a wrong term. That wasn't chess. That was a gamble with a special "personality" of the machine. Science: we have now found out that we can confuse a human player if we change completely the machine player after one game. Only a clairvoyant could handle that situation to his own benefit. But Kasparov is not. Science: Hoopla!! We've found out that Kasparov isn't a clairvoyant! But, what has this to do with anything at all? See, what I'm calling violating the rules in science? This was about the question whose chess was stronger, man or machine. It was NOT about clairvoyants and operator-IBM-team-tricks. > >These are very much your points, and he is clearly very much speaking to them. >You simply don't like to address any concrete arguments, but simply keep >repeating yourself over and over and over again. One must repeat the obvious against confusion and ignorance. Looks bad - perhaps - but this is what a teacher is doing all day long. Ignorance is a great factor in this world. > >It is, frankly, getting old. People still get sucked into these posts because >they can't imagine that anyone can so willfully ignore obvious reasoning. But >you have made it clear that you can't be reasoned with. This has a deep irony. It is true, with the exception of Bob, nobody here gave me much to really think about. My arguments are not even correctly understood. Those who understand me, are not in this debate. I for one am always interested in the difficulties people can have with easy arguments. In finding them and in answering them. Astonishing! > >-= Lar
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.