Author: Tapio Huuhka
Date: 14:39:33 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2001 at 00:05:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > > I said below it doesn't really depend on how you use it, if you use it. Humans try to carry all the information in their brains, but they are prone to error, make mistakes, forget their own analysis and find new ways to mess things up in every game. Why shouldn't they be allowed to carry the info with them and check it, just like computers do? > > >>> >>>>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. > > Yes, I agree. It doesn't matter any, if we apply the rules as we should. I'll just copy what I wrote to Bruce, for convenience: The computer playing rules say: "The game shall be played according to FIDE Laws." And then there are the exceptions that don't say anything about sources of information, which are prohibited by the FIDE laws. The FIDE laws say: "The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws." To me it says, that if computers are allowed to bring their teams' home analysis (e.g. opening books and endgame tablebases) to the tournament, humans should be allowed to do the analogous thing and use the information they want. > >> >>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??? > > Please see above.
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.