asmFish

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
leavenfish
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:23 am

Re: asmFish

Post by leavenfish » Thu May 30, 2019 6:02 pm

Ozymandias wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 8:30 pm
leavenfish wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 4:21 pm
the historically accepted idea of correspondence chess (one on one...just not face to face) is truly dead.
It was never one on one, that was the point. It doesn't really matter where the move comes from, it's either yours or it comes from an outside source you trust more. What's funny is, in classical CC, the move didn't come from an engine and yet, outside help was more outrageous than it is nowadays. One, it had to do with who you knew, now it's democratic, everyone can buy a silicon friend. Two, you could just go with the suggested move and be sure it'd be better than anything you could cook up, now with so many "friends" suggesting candidate moves, you have to take an active part.
Issac Asimov wrote an article called 'The Relativity of Wrong' pointing out (among other things) that it is wrong to say the Earth is flat...but also wrong to say that it is round...also wrong to think of it as a sphere. It is really more an oblate spheroid.

I say this because your argument that it was "never one on one". Essentially it was. Human analysis is much more likely to be 'wrong' than engine analysis. Heck, back in the day some GM's were known to putting forth 'poor analysis' or outright misleading analysis to games in the Informant setting 'traps' for future opponents. Anyone relying on human games or analysis had to use the 'buyer beware' approach. People are inherently fallible in any case, which is why chess (at least OTB) is still viable as a game. :)

Engine use simply changes everything - even more so than when I quit ICCF 15+ years ago because of their prevalence. For you to argue that because 'everyone is doing it' or 'can' do it...makes it less wrong evades the point, which is that todays 'Correspondence Chess'...is something entirely different and not worthy of the name...needs to be called something else.

One could use the analogy of people swimming in competition...once you allow jets to push the person along in the water (even if the human has to steer it to some degree...some jets may even have guidance systems...) you simply change everything. It is a different game and open more to yet another element of 'he who has the biggest/baddest jets' doing the dirty work for him DURING THE COURSE OF THE RACE may have some sort of edge. It is no longer a swimming competition.

This is not even something we should argue about...it is self evident.

leavenfish
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:23 am

Re: asmFish

Post by leavenfish » Thu May 30, 2019 6:06 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 9:10 pm
Ozymandias wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 8:30 pm
leavenfish wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 4:21 pm
the historically accepted idea of correspondence chess (one on one...just not face to face) is truly dead.
It was never one on one, that was the point. It doesn't really matter where the move comes from, it's either yours or it comes from an outside source you trust more. What's funny is, in classical CC, the move didn't come from an engine and yet, outside help was more outrageous than it is nowadays. One, it had to do with who you knew, now it's democratic, everyone can buy a silicon friend. Two, you could just go with the suggested move and be sure it'd be better than anything you could cook up, now with so many "friends" suggesting candidate moves, you have to take an active part.
I never used to anybody for advice when I was playing. Can't speak for my opponents, but my openings research and figuring out plans and moves was just me. I would expect that it would have been the same for my opponents too.
Yup...certainly the way it once was.

As they say: the past is another world and they do things different there.

People can accept policy to not 'cheat' on say chess.come, ICC, PlayChess, etc...but the number (volume) of 'banned players' you see, clearly shows you can't take people at their word...and it is of course due to engines and people egos.

User avatar
Ozymandias
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:30 am

Re: asmFish

Post by Ozymandias » Thu May 30, 2019 7:05 pm

leavenfish wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:02 pm
Ozymandias wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 8:30 pm
leavenfish wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 4:21 pm
the historically accepted idea of correspondence chess (one on one...just not face to face) is truly dead.
It was never one on one, that was the point. It doesn't really matter where the move comes from, it's either yours or it comes from an outside source you trust more. What's funny is, in classical CC, the move didn't come from an engine and yet, outside help was more outrageous than it is nowadays. One, it had to do with who you knew, now it's democratic, everyone can buy a silicon friend. Two, you could just go with the suggested move and be sure it'd be better than anything you could cook up, now with so many "friends" suggesting candidate moves, you have to take an active part.
Issac Asimov wrote an article called 'The Relativity of Wrong' pointing out (among other things) that it is wrong to say the Earth is flat...but also wrong to say that it is round...also wrong to think of it as a sphere. It is really more an oblate spheroid.

I say this because your argument that it was "never one on one". Essentially it was. Human analysis is much more likely to be 'wrong' than engine analysis. Heck, back in the day some GM's were known to putting forth 'poor analysis' or outright misleading analysis to games in the Informant setting 'traps' for future opponents. Anyone relying on human games or analysis had to use the 'buyer beware' approach. People are inherently fallible in any case, which is why chess (at least OTB) is still viable as a game. :)

Engine use simply changes everything - even more so than when I quit ICCF 15+ years ago because of their prevalence. For you to argue that because 'everyone is doing it' or 'can' do it...makes it less wrong evades the point, which is that todays 'Correspondence Chess'...is something entirely different and not worthy of the name...needs to be called something else.

One could use the analogy of people swimming in competition...once you allow jets to push the person along in the water (even if the human has to steer it to some degree...some jets may even have guidance systems...) you simply change everything. It is a different game and open more to yet another element of 'he who has the biggest/baddest jets' doing the dirty work for him DURING THE COURSE OF THE RACE may have some sort of edge. It is no longer a swimming competition.

This is not even something we should argue about...it is self evident.
Just three words: Joop van Oosterom

leavenfish
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:23 am

Re: asmFish

Post by leavenfish » Fri May 31, 2019 1:08 am

Ozymandias wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 7:05 pm
leavenfish wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:02 pm
Ozymandias wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 8:30 pm
leavenfish wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 4:21 pm
the historically accepted idea of correspondence chess (one on one...just not face to face) is truly dead.
It was never one on one, that was the point. It doesn't really matter where the move comes from, it's either yours or it comes from an outside source you trust more. What's funny is, in classical CC, the move didn't come from an engine and yet, outside help was more outrageous than it is nowadays. One, it had to do with who you knew, now it's democratic, everyone can buy a silicon friend. Two, you could just go with the suggested move and be sure it'd be better than anything you could cook up, now with so many "friends" suggesting candidate moves, you have to take an active part.
Issac Asimov wrote an article called 'The Relativity of Wrong' pointing out (among other things) that it is wrong to say the Earth is flat...but also wrong to say that it is round...also wrong to think of it as a sphere. It is really more an oblate spheroid.

I say this because your argument that it was "never one on one". Essentially it was. Human analysis is much more likely to be 'wrong' than engine analysis. Heck, back in the day some GM's were known to putting forth 'poor analysis' or outright misleading analysis to games in the Informant setting 'traps' for future opponents. Anyone relying on human games or analysis had to use the 'buyer beware' approach. People are inherently fallible in any case, which is why chess (at least OTB) is still viable as a game. :)

Engine use simply changes everything - even more so than when I quit ICCF 15+ years ago because of their prevalence. For you to argue that because 'everyone is doing it' or 'can' do it...makes it less wrong evades the point, which is that todays 'Correspondence Chess'...is something entirely different and not worthy of the name...needs to be called something else.

One could use the analogy of people swimming in competition...once you allow jets to push the person along in the water (even if the human has to steer it to some degree...some jets may even have guidance systems...) you simply change everything. It is a different game and open more to yet another element of 'he who has the biggest/baddest jets' doing the dirty work for him DURING THE COURSE OF THE RACE may have some sort of edge. It is no longer a swimming competition.

This is not even something we should argue about...it is self evident.
Just three words: Joop van Oosterom
Just one word: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joop_van_Oosterom

Dann Corbit
Posts: 9772
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: asmFish

Post by Dann Corbit » Fri May 31, 2019 3:20 am

leavenfish wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 6:02 pm
Ozymandias wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 8:30 pm
leavenfish wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 4:21 pm
the historically accepted idea of correspondence chess (one on one...just not face to face) is truly dead.
It was never one on one, that was the point. It doesn't really matter where the move comes from, it's either yours or it comes from an outside source you trust more. What's funny is, in classical CC, the move didn't come from an engine and yet, outside help was more outrageous than it is nowadays. One, it had to do with who you knew, now it's democratic, everyone can buy a silicon friend. Two, you could just go with the suggested move and be sure it'd be better than anything you could cook up, now with so many "friends" suggesting candidate moves, you have to take an active part.
Issac Asimov wrote an article called 'The Relativity of Wrong' pointing out (among other things) that it is wrong to say the Earth is flat...but also wrong to say that it is round...also wrong to think of it as a sphere. It is really more an oblate spheroid.

I say this because your argument that it was "never one on one". Essentially it was. Human analysis is much more likely to be 'wrong' than engine analysis. Heck, back in the day some GM's were known to putting forth 'poor analysis' or outright misleading analysis to games in the Informant setting 'traps' for future opponents. Anyone relying on human games or analysis had to use the 'buyer beware' approach. People are inherently fallible in any case, which is why chess (at least OTB) is still viable as a game. :)

Engine use simply changes everything - even more so than when I quit ICCF 15+ years ago because of their prevalence. For you to argue that because 'everyone is doing it' or 'can' do it...makes it less wrong evades the point, which is that todays 'Correspondence Chess'...is something entirely different and not worthy of the name...needs to be called something else.

One could use the analogy of people swimming in competition...once you allow jets to push the person along in the water (even if the human has to steer it to some degree...some jets may even have guidance systems...) you simply change everything. It is a different game and open more to yet another element of 'he who has the biggest/baddest jets' doing the dirty work for him DURING THE COURSE OF THE RACE may have some sort of edge. It is no longer a swimming competition.

This is not even something we should argue about...it is self evident.
It was Plato who argued that the only meaningful truth does not abide in the physical universe.
For instance, a physical cube, no matter how perfect we try to make it, will never be a perfect cube. And if it were somehow perfect, a microscopic change in temperature would change that.

The only real perfection would be found in the underlying mathematical concept of cube.
As far as the earth being an oblate spheroid, there are many models such as IERS 2003:
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publicatio ... F299.live2
but, as you know, the moon rotating about the earth changes its shape constantly.
Snow melts, oceans rise.
There really is no definite shape of the earth that is exact, and if there were it would be wrong a millisecond later.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.

User avatar
Ozymandias
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:30 am

Re: asmFish

Post by Ozymandias » Fri May 31, 2019 4:38 am

leavenfish wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 1:08 am
Just one word: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joop_van_Oosterom
That link clearly states that you could be world champion playing someone else's moves, so you are conceding my point.

Post Reply