Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Strength of the engine in chess programs

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.