Why myoptic views are sub-optimal in chess and painting

[Rolf]

With a caveat.

IMO painters of a certain time belong in retrorespect to certain modes, schools or paradigms. They dont copy each other but they work under the same influence of the time and for all they all base on their historic modes.

Chess programmers create little machines with a measurable performance. Their goal is to find a maximal speed relative to necessary chess content ressources.

It took me some time to think rationally about the strange findings in Rybka that the best engine couldnt play all the chess a weaker competitor was able to play.

Now it's a myoptic view on Rybka if someone whines about such deficites because a human player would be called idiotic or idiot savant if he were only good in certain realms and stupid in others. The view is myoptic because also in painting the distance of the perceiver decides about the class of the object and from short distance you perhaps could see the technique how you must paint to give the good expression from longer distances.

This is my lay explanation why Rybka is so much stronger than the other machine programs. The ideas of chess are the same, but the programming tricks make the difference in favor of Vas. I can only speculate but Vas must have found a better distribution of ressources in limited space and time. And a whole-istic approach of certain "testers" is absolute nonsense as long as human operators decide about the features the machine is using for competition. It's as if these lays would want to order a machine that behaves like a human GM. A delusion for several reasons.

I just wanted to share some of my thoughts.

From now on all programmers should work on the base of the optimal output for competitions and not for the best chess master impression the machine entity cheats the mediocre customers with.

Everybody should either criticise or continue these ideas. Have fun!