Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:53:02 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2001 at 15:52:18, Jorge Pichard wrote:
Before I comment, you should point out where the text below came from:
http://www.chessbase.com/events/leon2001/advch1.htm
"Advanced" Chess is certainly a sign of the times, and it is probably the only
tournament type one can play unquestionably online, though online play would
still leave the question open about uniform hardware, otherwise the larger
pocketbook is going to have an edge. I recognize its particular appeal to
players of lesser ability as the ultimate equalizer. In a sense it is a bit like
pre-firearm fighting and post-firearm fighting. Before guns, the best/strongest
fighter was undoubtedly a very heavy favourite, but after their appearance, any
Dick and Jane could pull a trigger with equally deadly effect. The parallel is
not perfect of course, but it does illustrate it fairly well. Put a 2600 player
against a 1600 player and the result is forgone short of something extremely
unusual happening. Give both of them a strong PC and anything goes. Friedel
argues that the better player will achieve the better results, but the reality
is that this is only true so long as the human player is capable of intuiting
superior moves to the program. If the program consistently finds better moves or
simply the best moves, then it won't make a difference how incompetent the human
partner is, unless the human partner of the duo insists on playing these lesser
moves. Right now, grandmasters are certainly capable of doing this, but as time
goes by, and the program/machine combinations increase in strength, the player's
ability to find superior moves will diminish, meaning the human's intellectual
participation will diminish as well. There is something else that isn't said,
and that is that a significantly weaker player will be mostly trying out moves,
seeing the computer's evaluation, and then coming back with the newfound
information to continue this human-guided computer research. I truly fail to see
what the player's chess-oriented ability was in this case, other than playing
out moves for the engine. The player will not have shown their tactical ability,
barely shown any positional ability, and made mostly use of their wrist and
eyes. What this has to do with chess other than that it takes place on a board
is beyond me. If the 1600 player was able to get Fritz or any engine to beat the
2600 player, who spent 15-20 years honing their brain to reach that level, what
have they shown? Exactly zilch, other than an engine can do it. We already know
that. So what? Why would anyone spend so much time studying and perfecting their
game if someone else could get meaningful results against them in a tenth the
time?
It also will strongly favour positional players BTW, whose ability lies more in
their strategy, and less in their tactics and calculating. In competitive chess,
we have come to agree that there are different approaches to the game, and
that's part of what makes it so interesting. Put a tactical player with an
engine, and his contribution will be far less (of course I won't say zero).
The opther aspects of the spectator appeal are different stories altogether.
Allowing the spectators to see inside the GM's brain as they fill out variations
on the screen is great for them, but has nothing to do with the engine's
contribution. I think the very same type of event, in which one of the
conditions could be that they enter moves on the screen until they have 5
minutes or less, would be far more interesting. The 5-minute condition would be
similar to the current one related to writing one's moves down, where you are
waived of this requirement when it could cause you to lose the game on time, and
would still allow the spectators to see what the GM was thinking. Only this time
it would REALLY be what the GM was thinking, and not what he got the engine to
paste on the screen. The conditions could be worked so that the player's moves
were a part of their mainline, or on the screen before being played, etc.
Playing out moves would already be a significant step away from the normal game
where you cannot do this, and the impact of visualization would already be
significantly reduced.
If you want to bring spectators more into the game, this is how I would do it,
but letting a computer do the playing sucks IMHO. There could still be a 3rd
player/commentator using the engine to back things up, and comment, and still
not dehumanize the game. Plus with the played out moves, the player would have
less excuses for chess "blindness" due to the inability to see the position at
the end of their line.
Albert
>The symbiosis: man and machine
>
>The game of Advanced Chess makes a virtue out of the reality of chess playing
>computers. Each human player is equipped with a PC, which he can consult at will
>during the game. The rate of play is one hour for all the moves, so that the
>player must be careful to allocate his time well. He enters variations for the
>computer to analyse, but also spends time pondering the position himself, while
>the computer is checking the crucial variations. The human is always in charge
>and has the final decision on which move to make.
>
>In a tournament all players have identical hardware – the latest and fastest PCs
>– which they can use to help select the moves. They use the computers in
>different ways in three phases of the game:
>
>In the opening they will consult a giant database of almost two million games to
>check whether the moves of the opponent have been played before and with what
>success.
>
>
>In the middlegame the players use the calculating powers of Fritz to check the
>feasibility of their plans. Typically a player will execute a sequence of moves
>he would like to play on the PC and then make the program do a tactical search
>to see whether there are any "holes" in the variation. He may try a second or
>third sequence and compare their merits.
>
>
>In the endgame the players may search for positions for which the computer has
>full information, checking whether a winning position can be reached.
>Displaying the thinking process
>A very attractive feature of Advanced Chess is that for the first time the
>public is able to directly observe how top Grandmasters find their moves. The
>monitor displays of both players are projected on large screens, so that the
>audience can follow every action of the player. In the analysis room a chess
>commentator will have a third computer – with the same program as the players –
>on which he can explain exactly why certain lines were rejected by the players.
>
>Strength of the Advanced Chess player
>It is important to note that the human-computer team is stronger than each of
>its components. A top Grandmaster may be stronger than the computer program he
>is using, but he is able to increases his playing strength even further when
>assisted by the program. Experts have estimated that the best man-computer teams
>are able to achieve a performance rating of 3000 on the Elo scale (the world's
>strongest players are just around 2800).
>
>Advanced Chess on the Internet
>The man-computer concept of Advanced Chess ties in very nicely with chess game
>servers that are becoming popular on the Internet. Most online games cannot be
>monitored for fairness. It is clear that a large number of players
>surreptitiously consult databases and chess playing computers during their
>games.
>
>The answer to the dilemma is to legalise the use of computers – at least in
>certain tournaments. The Internet is the perfect site for an Advanced Chess
>tournament circuit, in which anyone can participate. For the first time even the
>weakest of players can enter a tournament without fear of disgrace. At worst
>they will simply follow the computer on every move. Naturally, a stronger player
>with the same hardware who actually uses it constructively (as described above)
>will be superior, but the games against the novice will still be very exciting
>and of a very high quality.
>
>A strong grandmaster who understands how to use the computer well will dominate
>the opposition and win most of the tournaments he enters. But it will quite
>meaningful for amateurs to play against him, and they will actually win
>occasional games. Most importantly the amateur will sense the spirit of
>competition and learn a lot about the game in the process.
>
>Frederic Friedel
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.