Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 22:42:29 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 19:41:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 20, 2004 at 18:48:33, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>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 > >The same is for humans. > >Kramnik was not even thinking in the opening of his last loss against peter leko >and trusted analysis that he remembered. > >He discovered too late that he was losing the game and maybe it could be >preveneted if kramnik was thinking. > >Uri Kramnik did the thinking before the game in his preperation, But I agree that if he was skeptical towards his analasis he might have varied. 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.