Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:55:18 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! I have no problem with rules that limit the hardware. You can decide that the program should use only memory in the RAM of the computer but you cannot practically prevent programs to use opening book. opening book can be stored in the RAM and not in the HD. I think that for the future it may be interesting to make limitations about the hardware of the computers. Most humans have no chance against the top programs on the new hardware so if we want to see interesting comp-human games also in 2020 we should decide that for Fide tournaments the hardware that is allowed is only the palm of today. Another option is to make rules that allow humans to use notes and to use books during the game and another option is to use slower time control. I see no reason to decide that 2 hours/40 moves is the slowest time control in human-computer game and it is possible to decide about slower time control(I remember that 2.5 hours/40 moves or 2 hours/24 moves was used in the past). Another option is to allow both sides to take back moves but they lose time in the clock for their opponent after every take back so they cannot take back moves forever. It is going to be a fair game because the computers can also get the right to take back moves(today they do not use it but if there is going to be a serious game with the right to take back then I expect programmers to implement that option and also to teach their program to take back moves when they need it). Uri
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.