Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:34:07 06/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 17:01:50, Tapio Huuhka wrote: >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. I disagree when it comes to chess masters and beyond. I have seen these people play over a game they played 5 or 10 years previously, move by move, going over side-variations, resetting the board to the correct position to move on, etc... I used to know every king's gambit line in mco10, including the footnotes and even updates found in Chess Life and so forth. Once I memorize a book line, and then use it in a game, am I cheating? If so, why? If not, why does the computer cheat when it reads the game one time and converts it into something _it_ can remember? > >>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 I don't see how that is a valid comparison. Humans memorize book lines. Suppose the book is made a _part_ of the program, as constants that are conpiled into the executable. What then? > >That might give us a better perspective to both human and computer strengths and >weaknesses. So a computer with _zero_ opening theory memory vs a human that knows thousands of opening lines and traps? How does that give us a better perspective on anything. What about playing the games inside a sawmill? Both players "should" be bothered equally... > >>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. :) I happen to totally disagree. FIDE rules say you can't move pieces on the game board. The computer does not. It moves pieces on its "internal" board just like I do mentally when I am playing. The computer doesn't use any "handwritten" notes, nor does it make them during a game. Etc... I think the machines play perfectly legal chess according to any rules currently being used. I also think computers and humans are significantly different in the way they do things, such that a common set of rules is likely to be impossible to write or enforce. > >> >> >> >>> >>>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.