Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 15:48:33 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. > I think its important to redefine what we call a chess program because it is too ambiguous right now. We do limit how humans play chess. They are not allowed to access opening books or endgame books. I think the only thing of interest in human vs computer matches is the man vs the engine, not man vs opening encyclopedia. >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." I'm not against chess programs having access to GM games, but the program should have to analyse a choose what moves it wants to play. Today the engine is not even running in the opening. Regards Tony
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.