Author: Tapio Huuhka
Date: 16:06:54 06/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2001 at 08:34:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? > > I think cheating and fairness (below) are your terms, not mine. I don't think I've used them and see no reason to do so. But I applaud to your great 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 > > > > >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? > > As I said, it depends on how we define the boundary of the system. I have no difficulty in defining the bounds of the human player to include books and the rest of the culture of mankind, if I choose so. FIDE chose not to include those. > >> >>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... > > Well, the computer with zero opening theory would not be much worse off than me, for example. But I must say that I like my first comparison more. We get a better perspective, if we try to compare within reason and not just to seek contradictions. I rather like your sawmill idea. How would you teach the computer to know about the sawmill? And how would you bother a computer with anything, really. A game of chess doesn't chill it any. Just warms it up some. :) > > > >> >>>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. > > Should I say that you are quibbling? Of course we are talking about abstractions. My abstraction pairs could be for example: books -- opening libraries and endgame tablebases notes -- hashtables I'm sure you could find others. Speaking literally doesn't make much sense, because chess programs and computers really don't play chess at all. It's just an abstraction. Poor things don't even know how to move the (real) pieces on the board. They have to be operated (today I read that Stefan Meyer-Kahlen himself is going to operate Pocket Fritz in the upcoming event against Leko and others.) Yes, computers and humans are very different from each other and I'm glad they are. I don't see any need for a common set of rules for them; perhaps because I usually think that computers are just tools like saw and hammer. Useful, if we know how to use them. But when the strength of chess playing computers is compared to that of humans, I find it more than a little bit awkward to grant the computers "perfect" opening and endgame knowledge not by learning, but by some external data. I guess that the programmers themselves have learned more than their programs that are just using the data available. That leaves just the middlegame to think of and I presume that's not a very difficult comparison for the time being. I'm sure that the play of computers will continue to improve and not just because of better hardware. And they have been tremendous tools for chessplayers for some time now. > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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.