Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:52:40 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 16:36:12, Torstein Hall wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 13:22:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 20, 2002 at 12:43:25, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 2002 at 12:13:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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... >>>> >>>>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 >>> >>>Let me clarify in a sentence the Rolf original statement: >>> >>>"It's clear cheating to play with books against humans". >>> >>>w.b.r. >>>Otello >> >> >> >> >>Let me clarify the argument against that statement: "there is no currently >>existing in FIDE or USCF rules that prevent memorization of long seqauences >>of opening moves." Never has been, never will be. > >I think it is easy to make an argument that permanent memory is written >material. If you store a openingbook on your harddrive it is written material in >my view. Its there to read for anyone with a PC to connetc to the HD. :-) And as >such against the rules! It is _also_ theoretically possible for someone to find "e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nxf7" in my memory and read it out, probably post-humously. Does that mean _my_ memory is also against the rules??? I doubt it... > >So what it boils down to is what kind of material you consider the openingbook >on your PC to be. > > >> >>So the argument is totally moot. As shown by the USCF allowing computers to >>play in rated events for 40 years. FIDE even allowed them for a period of >>time... > >In the "old days" the programs where so weak that we allowed them to "cheat" >with a openingbook. Without it the programs would play to stupid chess. Now I >think it is time for the programs to do without. > >Torstein
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.