Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:04:06 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 12:13:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On May 20, 2002 at 11:17:47, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote:
>
>>Dear Mr. Tueschen,
>>
>>I can't give you percentages for engines without EGTBs or Opening Books. I do
>>think that the knowledge of endgames and openings is crucial in human chess
>>progression. A chess master has openings stored in his/her memory. What is
>>wrong with the chess program having the same information?
>>
>>The specialized knowledge of today's chess programs is what makes them more fun
>>to play. It is no fun playing a machine that computes an opening line for three
>>minutes that is on record as being a lousy line. I prefer all the added
>>information.
>>
>>Computers have no intelligence on their own. They simulate intelligence. You
>>know that Rolf.
>>
>>Tim Frohlick
>
>To prevent that we begin talking at cross purposes, let me please add, Tim, that
>I like playing the programs too with all that integrated. The question about
>strength of the engine is often confused with wrong comparisons. Here are some
>of them I met in earlier discussions.
>
>- Humans learn theory by heart so why books are wrong in computer programs?
>- The design of a computer program was always a combination of engine and book.
>- Also human players learn by heart without necessarily understanding each move.
>
>All these arguments are false. But it's not so at first sight. And therefore we
>discuss all the time.
Allow me to refresh your memory.
>Then the point learning by heart without understanding. Well, that's an easy
>one. This is how weaker amateurs must play chess. Still it makes fun, as I know.
>Masters would not be masters if they played chess like this. Masters and their
>big brothers write the theory weaker amateurs then must learn by heart.
>
>Of course I know the simulating thing, Tim, but I cannot understand why "we",
>computerchess people, programmers and their programs should try to simulate
>being GM without respecting the normal FIDE rules of chess! Why human
>chessplayers can't read out of books during a game of chess too? Because, I got
>the answer, opening books are not books, they are integral constituent of a
>machine. Ahar...
Yes, Phil Innes stuck by this utterly ridiculous argument too. You both argued
that every article in the FIDE rulebook must be followed to the letter by chess
programs. You singled out the one on consulting previously stored information
and it was shown you had two problems with this:
1) If you follow the rules, then you must truly follow all the rules at which
point you will find there are MANY that machines do not follow. Why? Because the
rules were written for humans. There is a section for specific computer-related
rules.
2) The book is not the only area of previously stored information. Other than
the obvious EGTBs you have the entire hashtables which are nothing more than
information written into memory by the program to be organized and consulted. So
if books are illegal as you contend then so is the engine itself.
You also argued that the books served no purpose other than to save the programs
from falling into known bad positions. It was then shown that humans are no
different. You contended that humans *understand* the moves. Ok, if the programs
must *understand* the moves then it is hopeless. Is this all coming back to you?
You countered the engines must at least be able to reproduce the moves they
play, showing they could find the moves on their own. That argument too is
deeply flawed. Examples abound, but I'll repeat the one I used: The Marshall
Gambit. Prior to Marshall's introduction of the gambit, no one had found the
idea as he played it. Thus any player that suddenly began playing it cannot
claim they would have found it on their own. They certainly hadn't until then.
The Gambit was taken apart by Capablanca in a historic game and the gambit fell
into disgrace for at least 30 years (!). No one played it until some Russian
analysts found the sequence of ...c6 instead of Nf6 as played by Marshall
himself. Soon enough it gained credibility and perhaps the moves were
*understood*, but that certainly doesn't mean that all the players who play it
today, even top players, would suddenly be able to find both 9...d5! and the
necessary ...c6 on their own had they no prior knowledge of this opening. You
certainly know the story of Columbus's egg. There is nothing wrong with this,
since why should every mathematician have to find and rediscover on their own
over 2000 years of theory, as opposed to learning what has already been
discovered and building from there. That is how we advance.
>
>For me the development of computerchess took a wrong course. For me a
>self-learning system playing chess could be a better symbol of AI than the
>package which is simply not following the FIDE rules of chess. I'm talking about
>games between human players and comps. What were the reasons for the programmers
>to take the forbidden short cut?
Finally, what is a chess program? Is it AI? No, although many have imagined it
would be such when it was in its infancy, it isn't AI. Is it just the engine
then? No, the program is the sum of its parts enabling it to play the best chess
moves possible from the first move to the last. There is no *forbidden
shortcut*. They are machines, programs, human constructs to give us the best
possible opponent when we have none. They are giant calculators. They are toys.
They don't compete, they are not animate. Competition is a concept of living
creatures. If I (and this is still ALL from those previous posts BTW) propose a
footrace between myself and an automatic motorcycle (just to remove the human
element), am I *competing* against it. On my end, perhaps, but the bike is
certainly not *competing* against me. It gets turned on and then shut off.
Computers are the same.
Albert
>
>Rolf Tueschen
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.