Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:01:37 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 04:53:15, Russell Reagan wrote: >On October 19, 2004 at 21:52:28, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>Humans also do this but they start on move 1. They can use ideas from other GM >>games but they have to understand every move. Chess engines would never play the >>openings they do without a book. So basically we have human players playing the >>opening for the computer. Then the engine can play the middle game but when the >>endgame comes humans again step in and the engine is not allowed to play the >>moves it would choose. This is fair? > >> When we speak of human vs computer matches the term traditional hardly applies. >>We have simply been using the format for human vs human matches. As regards the >>opening book. I think it is the equivalent to letting GMs consult opening >>materials during play. The same goes for endgame tablebases. These things are >>excepted as part of the "chess program". I think the real question is about the >>strength of the engine. Anyone can make opening books, and most programs use the >>same Nalimov endgame tablebases, so there is no skill involved from the >>programmer for these. When we talk of program X beating GM Y sometimes it has >>very little to do with the strength of program X's engine.I think the best thing >>that can be said about chess engines is they don't blunder in the middlegame. >>I think the only logical way to view human vs computer matches is from the >>perspective of whether or not engines are getting stronger. In this regard >>opening books and endgame tablebases are detrimental to seeing the true value of >>the engine. >> I think we need to redefine what we consider fair for these matches and why we >>even have them. >>Regards >>Tony > > >Why do you insist on limiting what you consider to be a computer chess playing >program? You cannot limit how a human plays chess, so why do you want to limit >how a computer can play chess? The human can use its long term memory, but for >some reason the computer should not be able to? For a person who keeps talking >about what is fair, that sure doesn't seem fair. > >If you were to organize a man vs. machine match, what would the rule be for >computer programs? Would you ban opening books and endgame tablebases? How would >you enforce your rules? In the end you won't be able to prevent the use of >opening books and endgame tablebases, just like you can't tell a human, "Don't >use any of your opening knowledge during this match." You can prevent humans from using opening lines that they remember during games. simply have a rule that the game starts with after some random moves of both sides like 1.a4 a5 and all the opening theory that they remember will not be worth much. Are computers stronger or weaker in these conditions? I do not know and the only way to find out is to play games in these conditions. Uri
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.