Author: Tapio Huuhka
Date: 14:01:50 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 22:06:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 19, 2001 at 12:15:52, Tapio Huuhka wrote: > >> >>Now that we are talking FIDE rules, I wonder why it's still conveniently >>forgotten that opening libraries and endgame tablebases do not agree with FIDE >>rules (conduct of players). Human players are prohibited from using books during >>play. > > >This argument is flawed _and_ pointless. It is flawed because as a human, I >memorize openings by reading them, studying them, and playing them. I know >players that can read a game one time, and play it back move for move 5 years >later. "Kolty" (for those that had the pleasure of meeting him) could do this >in a heartbeat, and for anyone that saw his impossible knight's tour demos >naming each square as directed by the audience and then using those 64 names >to do the tour, was amazing. > >He obviously had a great memory. > Interesting, but Koltanowski is a good example of what people in general are _not_. People really have what we could call a "poor" memory. >So does a computer. The computer does not use a "book". It uses something >stored "internal" to the machine, just like a human. > We could argue where to draw the border of the system. FIDE does not include books or notes for humans. You seem to include external and internal (below) data for programs, so that the player is the computer with a program, not the program itself. Seems reasonable to me, but when we compare computers with humans, it might be more reasonable to compare either: 1. computers with computer assisted humans (or humans with books) or 2. computers without opening libraries and endgame tablebases with humans That might give us a better perspective to both human and computer strengths and weaknesses. >The argument is pointless because when you look at a chess program, that is >nothing but "written computer instructions", the computer "moves" pieces on >its internal electronic board, it uses stored (written) patterns in the >evaluation, etc. Basically a computer and human are different. The human >has some capabilities that the computer doesn't, which I could claim is "unfair" >too. :) > Yes, I didn't have the energy to spell that out, but I'm glad you did. It seems we agree that computers do not obey the FIDE rules. I couldn't care less, if I didn't so often bump into these amusing human-computer comparisons in the web. It's more or less like comparing apples to oranges, to use the banal old saying. My "comparison" would be that I like them both. :) > > > >> >>Maybe this has something to do with the fact that computers can't compete in >>FIDE events and that many players don't want to play against computers. I think >>it's not reasonable to compare human players with computers. Look what happened >>to Kasparov: in the prefece of MCO de Firmian tells that much of the success of >>Deep Blue was due to their good opening preparation (so Kasparov was outprepared >>that time, too :) > > >Computers _can_ compete... but the registration fee is extremely large. A >resolution allowing this was passed several years ago (It might well have >been rescinded but I have not heard that.) At the time it was passed, most >of us thought "that is a ridiculous amount of money to require..." > > > > > > >> >>What would be the rating of top programs without opening libraries and endgame >>tablebases? >> >>Tapio
This page took 0.01 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.