Author: pete
Date: 11:39:21 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 14:19:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 13, 2000 at 06:19:46, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On June 13, 2000 at 03:30:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>I don't think I am missing the point. People think that computers have an >>>unfair advantage, so they want to cripple them. I disagree adamantly. >>> >>>It is humans who have the unfair advantage. Just because they don't apply it >>>properly is not the computer's fault. >>> >>>Humans have opening books. Does anyone have to sit and think to decide that 1. >>>e4 or 1. d4 is better than 1. f4 or 1. h4? >>> >>>No thought is required because we have memorized the openings. Some very good >>>players have memorized very deeply. Their "opening book" is probably as large >>>or larger than any computer opening book. >> >>Well, computers play chess in a different way using calculation, while human >>players play chess using their understanding of the game itself. That gives > >That's just your opinion of "understanding." I think that computers understand >chess just fine. > >>different advantages and disadvantages. In principle computers have to use time >>on each single move, whether it be the first or the last. I think the average >>thinking time would be very similar. Human players would use less time in the >>opening and endgame and much more in the middlegame. A computer would use more >>time in the opening and endgame phase and less in the middlegame. I don't think >>there's any timedisadvantage without a book. >> >>Opening knowledge is an inherent part of the human understanding of chess. The >>same doesn't apply for computer programs. This and endgame knowledge is a part > >But opening books are an inherent part of computer chess programming. Otherwise, >why does every program have one? I don't see the difference... > >>of the game of chess. When you play chess for the first time then every move >>looks okay, but you gradually learn what works and what doesn't. The same should >>apply for computer programs. If it can't play the game... well, then it's just > >But humans have teachers and read books. Surely programmers can teach their >programs...? > >-Tom Let's throw another argument not yet mentioned into the ring : The idea about opening books discussed up to now seems too narrow to me . It mostly concentrates on opening books created by pure collection of human masters' games so the idea that this is some sort of cheating seems natural at first sight . Two aspects I think are not taken into account : a.) It is _not_ trivial to build a good opening book this way ; you have to implement learning eventually ; sometimes players play bad openings but still win etc. ( you won't want those in your book for long ) In no way does this make up with the way strong humans build their opening repertoire , it can only _repeat_ what others _played_ before ; and something like the REBEL EOC is a non-trivial additional feature that probably took some time to implement too . Human players tend to know and understand far more about their pet lines than actually played games . b.) How do you want to deal with the programs who have a hand-build opening book containing lots of original analysis done by program and program author ( or mostly independent master player or opening expert member of the team ? ) I remember finding lots of completely original analysis in the MChess books build by Sandro Necchi or in the Hiarcs books ( can't remember the author at the moment ) ; same probably true for the specially tuned books of Alexander Kure or Jeroon Noomen . Is it really "fair" to decline this ? It seems to me it requires much knowledge to find opening lines which are on the one hand good and on the other hand suit your program best as possible.
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.