Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 12:44:08 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 12:48:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. >> >>With human players we mean weak amateurs or masters? It begins with such trivial >>questions. Ok, a weak amateur learns by heart a few lines. The opponent, also a >>weak amateur makes a weaker reply and our first weak amateur cannot exploitate >>it, although the move is weaker than the book move. >>Or the line ends and the weak amateur all on his own begins to blunder. Ah, he >>had studied typical master games of that opening? Again the answer from above. >>It's a total gamble. If the variation is played like it should, our amateur >>might win in the end or lose or the other way round. >> >>A master, and that is difficult to understand as I have seen, does _not_ simply >>play learned moves or lines. Simply because it wouldn't help him. He can only >>play line he has analysed high up into the middle game. It's a capital error to >>think that masters play chess with learning by heart lines they don't analyse. >>Of course they must learn by heart their analyses. >> >>Now, what chapter should be discussed for our engines? I take for granted the >>master chapter. So here comes my crucial argument: book doctors do nothing else >>but preventing the machine play something that could lead into disadvantages. >>But the machines would play these lines if they could. They are blind and can't >>foresee the dangers. So far about master play by machines. I am not talking >>about training games or my own fun games against engines with all power books >>etc. Here the question was, what is the strength of the engine. Would you anwer >>me, that the machine is very strong, if the book doctor has done a good work? Do >>you think that the average master could only prevent opening traps if he learned >>them by heart or does he understand the content and the context of a trap? So, >>this is how long it takes to discuss only a few aspects of only the first >>argument. >> >>Let me add the next two points in short. >> >>The design was defined/ found in the old days of CC when the machines couldn't >>play chess without a minimum of moves. So this should not be an argument for the >>actual machines. The engine should have enough chess knowledge to be able to >>play reasonable opening moves. >> >>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... >> > > > >Please take this argument _elsewhere_. It is old. It is repetitive. And >it serves absolutely no purpose. And it has nothing to do with current >computer chess approaches or rules. > >Or perhaps it _does_ serve your purpose of stirring acrimonious debate. > >CCC is not the place for such nonsense. Tread lightly... > > > > >>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? >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >There is no "forbidden shortcut" being taken. Feel free to cite the rule >that is being broken. Many will then feel free to show you how your >interpretation of said rule is mistaken. I am wondering if you all understand what this sort of nonsens means for me. Regards Marc van Hal
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.