Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:21:20 02/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
There is a main or key point behind all these aspects which isnt discussed enough. Either because Kasparov created so much fog and Morovic explained the double bind with all frankness. What I called ethical basics is the perspective from human chess. If you are a GM you must follow that commen consense. Only if your are below masterstrength, say a good expert wit Elo 2000 or lower, then you have the freedom to play with the so-called nasty mode and defend the honor of human beings against the - I must clarify it - the operator side of computerchess. Programmers who mostly have no strong insight into chess, do have the real relation in mind. They know that their creations dont play chess. They know that it's all already unfair how today machines can rely on all the normally forbidden tools in human chess. The problem is the second row, the operators and eager freaks. They really believe - like religious fanatics - that their computerprograms are really stronger than human GM. Which is hyperbole and big nonsense. The solution for that delusion was explained with the ethical basics of the typical GM who always plays his very best chess (in a way every artist does his best) no matter against whom. Against a lay a GM could otherwise sac two pieces and still win left-handedly. Of course against a program he could win at will IF and ONLY if he would play into the weaknesses of a machine. But no, he cant do it, he plays the opening until move 25 with the machine as if the latter were a veritable GM with a yearlong experience. In truth the machine has all the books and it looks what is written down. In humanm chess this is called cheating. In computerchess this is called "otherwise the machine wouldnt know that it's not a washing machine but a chess player"! Again, the average operator believes in the veritable strength of the machine as if it were a real GM, only much stronger and with Elo above 3000... I said Kasparov made a lot of fog. What does it mean? Well, Kasparov was in schizo mode. On the one hand he believed that he was the better chessplayer which is true and false depending of the practical side. On the other hand he made so much PR for Deep Blue and himself that he was obliged to make the machine stronger than it really was. In the end Kasparov was confused by his own weak preparation and a nasty aspect the other side brought into play on behalf of IBM. They simply threw their science ethics into the bin and defined the whole event as another form of war. But in that case Kasparov wasnt prepared at all. And he would have had million of possibilities to make the machine look like idiot. The way how he tried to make it he let look himself like the idiot. That is the sad interpretation. But look, you shouldnt forget that this brought him still a few hundreds of thousands of dollars... not bad for such a gamble. The second ranks in the computerchess scene always thought that DB was now really stronger than Kasparov, which is obviously crap. But it is also true because Kasparov isnt the killer on the lose, he was always the well-prepared academican who made something called autopsy, the same Kramnik later made with him as the victim. As you know Kramnik to me is the best player ever from his talent and concentration. He's so far above players like Leko or Topalov that he gave Leko the advance and forcedly he had to win the last game to draw the match and keep his title. If you know how difficult it is to beat Leko on command then you know what Kramnik has done. Also if you consider that a draw is so natural between the higher GM, in special for Leko. Kramnik is so strong that he can draw Fritz to let the business have their PR and still take the money for himself. The second row here in CC does really think that Kramnik is actually a weaker GM just because he's so nice and let's his collegues also win a few thousands whereas he has made millions. I digress. Why I brought the ethical aspect into the debate is still a different. I am not a GM, I have the freedom from science to make my own thoughts. And I say that it's fundamentally false to take a program that is still in the making, that has no endgame knowledge no nothing, at least for version 7, a beta, then take a GM, make 5 pics in the cubby of the hotel. Below 1000 games there is no possibility to declare a winner at all! Because with a 1,5:0,5 we have a confidence intervall for Chile of +/- 370! It makes no sense. But the second ranks in CC see the result as the proof of the superiority of Rybka. For me as a scientist Fern did prove a single fact. That Chilenian women have black hair! I knew that before, the best example is the new President of Chile...
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.