Author: Pablo Ignacio Restrepo
Date: 10:42:09 02/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
Rolf. A very interesting post have you wrote. The clean war has an ethical, because is a battle (and the worst experience) between human beings, and when the combat is between human beings must be many rules of respect between each other. Now, in Man Vs Man chess combat, ethical is a necessary element for a clean combat too in a specific game in progress. Not all must be accepted. But ethical is not in the atmosphere of Man Vs Man, because many professional chess human beings players, never have had the opportunities to play against the Top one like the great Gary Kasparov. One year ago I told a Russian G.M. if him have played anytime against Kasparov...he told to me... "Never." It was for me like a cold water over my heard, and I was really feeling sad, because the G.M. that answer to me have put all his effort, job, sacrifice and life making by himself like a G.M. There are not many opportunities, and this not ethical for itself. For example how many people have had opportunities to play against Deep Blue? Deep blue was turn off and its prestige turn on forever. Was that ethical way? Why never was putting into Linares tournament to Deep blue in 1997 and next years? I am going to appear now like an ignorant in the next letters... " I don’t know if Gary Kasparov had the reason in his I.B.M. comments about the magic IBM moves.” I am absolutely confused about was happening there. What could say today a simple reader of news? With all respect for your comments, I am not sure if G.M. is really better than engines...all to appear in the other way....”engines are now better than G.M.s and the challenger is over" But problems are that GMs are into his own jail (GMs paradigms), and have not used in public all the ant computer elements...... If I were a G.M. you could be sure, that I being making an extraordinary performance playing engines, now I am making puzzles just to be better, and make better performance. I think, that GMs have resigned to the important elements in the battle. They must took the arrow and the arc and attack engines across new ways, and not being playing all the time like for example Hydra was played for the Top and Gentleman G.M. Why GMs don’t put engines into the ridicule, ... there is the summaries...engines have not ethic playing against us. Human beings. They are cold, 100% cold, and its unique target is a cold target. Human beings must use the same machine elements and to be cold.............. Man Vs Machine is not same chess human beings have played for many centuries. This last one is a battle where is perfectly valid used that last knowledge, but perfectly valid to play since the cave (stone wall). Gary Kasparov must to return to play against engines, and Tope GM and GMs in general to change the conventional strategic ways, starting a new chess era, in Man Vs Machine. Of course that is beauty for us to seeing play a GM in a strong gambit playing against top engines, .................. but there is not problem if they change and start the new ant computer in extreme stiles. When GM starting to build a general stonewalls, the game will be open, engines must open his parameters, and a new Morphy will be coming to the scene. If GMs to continue in our days for the way they are walking opening many games, they are going to be catapulted for the engines. No way. The future of chess is just starting. Regards, Pablo On February 01, 2006 at 12:21:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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.