Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:19:07 02/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2003 at 13:20:04, Peter Hegger wrote: >On February 05, 2003 at 11:45:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 04, 2003 at 20:42:54, Peter Hegger wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2003 at 13:33:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 04, 2003 at 12:38:07, Peter Hegger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 04, 2003 at 11:35:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>(much snippage) >>>>> >>>>>>4.) in a defined period of time, say half a year, the progs are forbidden to be >>>>>>changed; new games into book are allowed, techno bugs are allowed to be >>>>>>corrected; but the chess system of the engine version jan-june is constant; >>>>>>books are allowed but without lines no computer ever could solve actually; >>>>>>tables must be discussed by the nasters themselves and possibly forbidden and >>>>>>reduced or such! >>>>>> >>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>> >>>>>Rolf, >>>>>Yes, this would definetely give the poor human a much better chance to compete. >>>>>But don't you think this is stacking the deck in favour of the humans a little >>>>>too much? >>>>>I, personally, could never beat my car in a race if it were set up and running >>>>>properly. However, if I pulled off a few spark plug wires, let the air out of >>>>>the tires and drained out the oil, I would then stand an excellent chance of >>>>>defeating it. >>>>>This is basically what you want to do to the programs. You want to weaken it, >>>>>like I would weaken my car and then when it loses you can say " see, I told you >>>>>that the programs are not that strong". >>>>>Would that really be fair? >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Peter >>>> >>>>No, I don't see the analogy here. You reason as if the prog should simply play >>>>chess as it is. And I am saying that we need rules for human-comp competition. >>>>You might be right that today we would get advantage for humans, but that is >>>>also exactly what is the truth, if you believe experts, but I wanted to give a >>>>general approach also for the next couple of years. It will become more and more >>>>difficult. I don't get what you mean with advantages. You insinuate that it's >>>>unfair if we would play like this? So fair is only fair if we let the computer >>>>side do what they want? Peter, I know that a constant identity is a problem. >>>>Computerchess programmers do want hourly tweakings. But I fear you all oversee >>>>what tweaking means for human players. They must feel like secondary garbage >>>>just being used for the glory of CC and the machine. >>>> >>>>Peter, just forget it, let's skip the tournament chess of humans and machines >>>>and continue with the hoax of show events. Kill your own future. Do what you >>>>want. I won't stop you. >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>>Rolf, >>>Let me approach the problem from a different angle. >>>Would you accept the following proposition? I'll not tweak or fiddle with my >>>program for 6 months before the GM-comp. match as you suggest above. We'll also >>>get a committee of masters together to determine which opening book can be used. >>>If the computer doesn't understand the resulting position of a certain opening >>>then that position will be stricken from the book as you also suggest. >>>In return, however, we must also level the playing field. The human master must >>>also sit in front of the same masters committee and explain each opening he/she >>>intends to use. If the committee feels that the GM isn't 100% certain on >>>resulting positions then he/she will also be restricted from using that opening. >>>Also, in all fairness, the human GM will not be allowed to play, study or open a >>>chess book for the same six months that the computer can't. >>>Do you now see just how absurd your suggestions for computer restrictions are? >>>If its not good for the goose then its not good for the gander either. >>>Regards, >>>Peter >> >> >>Peter, >>you don't understand me! Read above! I do NOT talk about show events. I mean >>tournament chess events! Several for these 6 months! And I allow that you twist >>you book, you can define openings prog should play in tournament 1 and not in >>tournament 2. Do you get this now? > >Rolf, >I've understood your basic premise all along. But, alas, it appears that we will >have to agree to disagree on alot of points. What you think is fair and what I >think is fair and what you think is show and what I think is show are obviously >two different things. I still stand by my basic assertion that programs are now >playing 2700-2800 chess. >I also fear that the only way to put this discussion to rest is by bribing the >super GM with lots and lots money for winnning games and by penalizing him/her >lots and lots of money for drawing or losing to programs. This could be done in >a tournament or a match setting. Offer $10,000 in the tournament setting for >anyone who can beat the program(s), $2,000 for a draw and $0 for a loss. Would >that be incentive enough to produce "fierce" chess and not mere show? >In a match seeting against, say Kasparov, what we do is set up an absolute World >Championship match between him and ProgramX for all the marbles. Have a one >million dollar prize fund divided in the following way. 1 million to the winner >for a 10 game match win, $100,000 to each for a drawn match and $0 for losing. >Now, if that's not enough incentive I don't know what is. > >>The ONLY think I want to exclude is that >> >>1) you fiddle between single games, because I think chess is variable enough > >I could accept this in the above match. > >>2) you fiddle with openings where NOT the final positions are BAD for comp or >>couldn't be understood! No, I am talking about openings whose positions these >>programs actually could NOT understand and where they would play GARBAGE if the >>book would not be there! To be clear, I want to exclude lines who might well >>lead to a equal position in the end but who contain positions where a comp would >>commit suicide - IF without book! > >I don't agree with this though. >Do we also tell Kasparov he can't play the Sicilian any more because he didn't >understand some resulting positions and lost the other day? >> >>Peter, please ask all the questions you like. Until you have understood what I >>meant with my main point. Otherwise the debate is moot. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >Now its off to the restaurant. All this Hamburger talk lately is making me >hungry. Here I can get a juicy flame broiled cheeseburger for $1.59 on >Wednesdays. I'll just pretend its a $40 one while I'm eating it. >Regards, >Peter Thanks Peter and all the best. You were very near where I see the future. But then we must delay the debate. Not many here want a real tournament chess future for CC. I want it! And ONLY therefore I try to argue. But to believe that such a future could be possible with all the book and tables impostering, is senseless. Ok, you didn't do it. For the nice debate I offer you that your hamburger is on my bill. The 1,59 juicy thing. :))) Next time when we meet for the first time. Rolf Tueschen
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.