Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:05:46 06/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2001 at 14:41:23, Tapio Huuhka wrote: >On June 21, 2001 at 23:52:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 21, 2001 at 19:06:54, Tapio Huuhka wrote: >> >> >>>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. >>>> >> >>Maybe I misinterpreted what you said. You said the computer violates some >>of the rules of chess. That is "cheating" by definition, since it is doing >>it in a secretive way. > >I said that computers don't agree to FIDE laws. And why should they agree? I >thought everybody knew that already, so I'm not sure it means that computers are >cheating. :) It's the basis of human-computer strength comparison I was >interested to talk about. > >> >>My memory is not "great". I know lots of players, rated higher and lower >>than myself, with better "book memory". I _really_ have problems chatting >>with Roman as he will give me 30 quick moves and then start talking about >>the resulting position while I am still trying to "catch up" mentally. If >>you have never talked with a GM, you _really_ don't understand the concept >>of "chess memory". :) They are absolutely astounding. They suck up chess >>moves like a giant vacuum cleaner and they seem to _never_ forget them. >> >> >Yes, I believe many GM's do not resemble normal humans in this respect. >> >>>> >>>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. >> >>No, but notice FIDE does not require a partial lobotomy to remove that part >>of your brain where you memorize opening theory lines. Which is about the >>same as removing the disk drive from the computer so that _it_ can't remember >>opening lines either. Of course we could stuff them in memory, but then we >>should probably remove those memory DIMMS as well... >> >>And then it would not be a computer and you would not be a "human" either... >> >It's all about what's internal and what's external. I find disk drives as >external as ECO. I said I liked my first comparison more (below). OK. If my "book" is in RAM then? IE I have one PC here with 4 gigs of memory. My normal opening book is only 13 megs. I could make that a bunch of constants in the program. Does that become "ok"??? That is what a "hunan" has done... connections in the brain to represent games... >> >>>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. :) >> >> >>That is the main point. The computer would have no problem with the heat, >>dust and noise. The human would get killed by the distractions. As far >>as removing the book to be equal to you, do you play a GM or IM and insist >>that they don't use the opening moves they know by memory? :) >> >> >I think comparisons of humans are pretty well defined by the system of Elo. >> >> >>>> >>>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. >> >> >>Oh but they do. I can show you a machine that sets up the board, moves >>the pieces, senses your moves, and needs _no_ help whatsoever. That qualifies >>as "playing chess" in my book if it good enough to give me competition in a game >>I have played for a long time... >> >I don't doubt that at all. Of course my computer couldn't do that. And not many >others, I presume. >> >>> 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.) >> >> >> >>Look at the 1978 match between David Levy and Chess 4.9... Chess 4.9 >>used a large robot mechanism to move pieces and punch the clock, totally >>with no human help. Sensors buried in the board (magnetic reed switches >>back then) detected David's moves.. >> >>Novag built a stand-alone chess board with a small robot arm that moved >>the pieces. Then we had the "phantom" that used a motorized magnet under >>the board to invisibly move the pieces... >> >> >That's still an abstraction. The robot doesn't use "one hand" to perform moves, >as stipulated by the FIDE rules. It uses just an artificial abstraction of a >hand. A similar abstraction is the opening library used by this robot (in any >form whatever) and it compares well with ECO volumes, for instance. Or does the >creation of computer opening books differ much in principle from the creation of >ECO? THat is too fine a distinction. What about a person that lost both arms in viet nam? A prosthesis with a "pincer" on the end to pick up pieces? Works fine and is definitely allowed in FIDE events. That is _exactly_ what the old Novag robot chessplayer "hand" looked like. > >I still think that computer's with hard disks or any other sources of external >information provided by the programmer would be better compared with human >players using books or computers. What if we dump the hard disks and only allow CPU and RAM??? > >But now it's time for Midsummer celebrations. I'm glad I won't be seeing any >computers till Monday. >> >>> >>>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. >> >> >>You need to talk to the right GM. The now deceased "kolty" was a favorite. He >>could read a page of MCO10, then recite it right back to you, move by move, >>footnote by footnote. AFter one reading. I had a junior college math teacher >>that could also do this. Used to sit at the front of the class, at his desk, >>close his eyes. and go over theorems and problems verbatim from the book. He >>would say "turn to page 277" and recite it just like he had a book in front >>of him. Perhaps by your definition he did... very "computer-like"?? :)
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.