Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:16:33 06/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2000 at 19:22:15, Hans Gerber wrote: >In my studying some recent messages I found the following. > >------------ > >On June 13, 2000 at 05:01:25, blass uri wrote: >[snip] >>The problem is that a lot of humans do not want to play against programs in >>their best. >> >>The result is that computers are not allowed to play in most human tournaments. >> >>If you want to see more comp-human games in tournaments the only possibility is >>to have limitations for the programs in part of the tournaments. >> >>I think that limitation about the hardware is the only possible idea to get more >>comp-human games. > >If this is true, then the GM's are cowards. IMO-YMMV. If they would expend >effort learning how to defeat computers they would not be so unnecessarily >fearful of them. Even at that, though, someday the computers will be better. > >>I do not want to have less comp-human games when the computers have no >>limitations but to have also computer-human games when the programs have >>limitation about the hardware so using opening book is not a good idea because >>you have less memory and cannot use big programs if you use an opening book. > >If the GM's are afraid to play the computers then I will be satisfied to watch >the GM's play the GM's and the computers play the computers. The only regret I >will have over that situation is that I won't know when the computers definitely >pass the GM's. > >To me, the most interesting matches are between very good computers and very >good humans. But if the humans don't want to play, we can't make them can we? > > >------------------------------ > > >Short annotations from my side. It is astonishing that the people I discussed >with have not been aware of such articles. > >The whole standpoint of Dann Corbit is IMO false. Possibly. I will need to be convinced. >1. GMs are no cowards. The would be ready to meet any chessic challenge! Look at the aftermath of Kasparov/Deep Blue II. >2. GMs are not afraid! The opening books (that was the topic the quoted article >was meant for) simply constituate a difficulty you have to work with. Not that >the work caused you real trouble but it isn't worth the money you get for it (as >a GM professional). If you had at least paid time enough to prepare but the >totality of opening books is something that is so artificial, so non-human, that >a special incentive must be there to accept that challenge. Money - nothing >else. A little more: computer experts might doubt this, but the most complete >opening book is for a real GM (with the possibility to prepare for) _not_ a real >challenge! But of course it costs energy... If you offer enough money you can convince many people to do all kinds of things they would not normally do. Can we say that we can directly measure the level of fear by the number of dollars it takes to get them to play the computers? >3. Computer people couldn't do anything about it?? >Of course you hold the keys in your hands. The situation where GMs have a fair >chance will not exist for "ever", in several years it will be nonsense to play >live games against computers. So baseline is that if you are smart enough in >these days, you might get GMs to accept your challenges. But please be smart and >not arrogant! Remember, a machine has no emotions but GMs are human beings with >BIG emotions... (It always will surpass my understanding why computerchess >people object against Kasparov so feverishly. Is it a case of projection, in >psychoanalytical terminology?) "The computer has no feelings" is an often used excuse as to why it is not necessary to be fair to the computer. After all, it does not care if it wins or if it loses. But there is a team of programmers who wrote the program and they do care. The care just as much as the GM does. When their program loses, then they lose. And when it wins, they are elated. The effort spent creating a world-class program is equal to the effort spent creating a world class GM. Not only does it take years of long, hard, labor but also special ability. Many programmers may labor for decades and not write such a program. Similarly, the GM must train from his youth and even with that he won't be a real top level GM without being gifted in ability. We think of the program as an inaminimate, uncaring thing and rightly so. This is exactly what it is. But it has a team that has worked hard for a long time to make that program successful. To be unfair to the machine is also to be unfair to them. I think it will be longer than you think before the machines take over as best players in the world. The mystique of Deep Blue and the surprise cheater at that German tournament has people a lot more worried than they need to be. If the GM's knew the strategies to beat computers and practiced them, they would do so much more easily than currently. I think that their own fear in facing the machines and also in learning how to play them is costing them a lot of money. If they would study and practice anticomputer strategy then they would fare much better and make themselves look much stronger. But because (at least in appearance) they don't seem to want to face them it certainly looks as though the machines are stronger Now consider, someone who does not know a lot about chess hears that there will be a tournament. "Why should I pay to buy a ticket to go and watch those GM's when I can just get Fritz and see a GM in action any time I want?" Now, that is not a truthful perception (IMO) -- but I think it is widely held. Now, imagine a few tournaments where the GM's hand the machines their hats. The perception is totally different now. Instead of indifference, the audience would have awe. "These guys can thump a computer!" >Hans Gerber
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.