Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:40:07 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 18:14:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 16:50:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 20, 2002 at 15:33:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 2002 at 12:48:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 20, 2002 at 12:13:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>I am interested in the games between comps and human chessplayers. If this would >>>be old or purposeless then I ask why the human players in the Dutch >>>Championships reacted so upset with different methods of obstruction? I would >>>like to see that computerchess would be reformed so that fair games against >>>human players could be made possible again. >>> >>>> >>>>Or perhaps it _does_ serve your purpose of stirring acrimonious debate. >>>> >>>>CCC is not the place for such nonsense. Tread lightly... >>>> >>> >>>Is the notion "nonsense" your opinion or the verdict of a moderator? I had >>>understanding if you said that I could not make propositions for technical >>>details in computerchess, but why do you want to forbid a whole topic? If it's >>>nothing new for you, perhaps others might be interested in the intended >>>reformation? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>> >>>Quotation from FIDE rules: >>>========================== >>>(a) >>>During play, the players are forbidden to make use of hand-written, printed or >>>otherwise recorded matter, or to analyse the game on another chessboard. They >>>are also forbidden to have recourse to the advice of a third party, whether >>>solicited or not. >>>[The only possible exception is that a player in a team competition may be >>>allowed to ask his captain "Should I accept his offer of a draw?" or "Does the >>>team need me to play for a win?". The captain or acting-captain must limit his >>>reply to an immediate "Yes", "No", or "It's up to you", without supplying his >>>answer after a detailed analysis of the position, and without making his answer >>>emphatic in any way. This captain, like all his players, is not allowed to >>>receive opinions, from any source, on the states of play of any games still in >>>progress] . >>>(b) >> >> >> >>OK.. Computers don't do any of that... > >Nothing of pre-recorded stuff? Mhmm. Or do you use a different wording? Nope. It is "memory". Just as _I_ recall specific sequences of moves (or entire games for that matter). I recall sequences of moves from _my_ memory. The computer recalls sequences of moves from _its_ memory. Seems simple enough to me... I think the _intent_ of the rules was quite clear. The "player" has to rely on his mind and memory, exclusively, when playing a game. The computer does _exactly_ that... > >> >> >> >>>The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is also forbidden, >>>aside from the actual recording of the moves and the times on the clocks. >> >>My computer doesn't even have a "piece of paper or pen" so that isn't an >>issue either... >> >> >> >>>(c) >>>No analysis is permitted in the playing rooms during play or during resumption >>>sessions. >> >> >>What does this have to do with anything? > >Hey, do you think that it was my wording here? I copied the text from a webpage >for you. I quoted a-d. I haven't invented these paragraphs. Thank you. > > > >> >> >>>(d) >>>It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This >>>includes the persistent offering of a draw. >> >> >>Computers do not do that either, so the point would be??? >> >> >> >> >>> >>>End of quotes >>>============================= >>> >>>In the other part of the discussion you wrote, I quote: >>> >>>"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. >>> >>>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..." >>> >>>End of the quote. >>> >>>================================= >>> >>>Now we have a clear contradiction between the official FIDE rules and your >>>statement about memorization. >> >>No contradiction whatsoever. I can memorize _anything_ I want to memorize. >>So can the computer. So can any chess player. > >You begin to memorize? You begin to read in your books. And a tempo you play the >move. With you is meant the computer, I should inform the younger readers. >That's why we have a problem with the rules. And to be excact, that they let you >participate in the past, doesn't change the situation. Or do you want to state >that this proves that the organizers saw nothing wrong with computers and books? > > >> >> >> >>> >>>Note, that the book line are not memorized days or hours before a game. The book >>>is in use DURING a game. Now, let's take a look into the rules: >>> >>>"During play, the players are forbidden to make use of hand-written, printed or >>>otherwise recorded matter, or to analyse the game on another chessboard." >>> >>>DURING play it's forbidden! >>> >>>QED >> >> >>I use _my_ memory _during_ a game. QED it is perfectly acceptable and legal >>to do so, whether a computer or a human is playing. >> > >It's funny, yes, GM with eidetics have a database in their head. >But all the rest of us is arguing against your forbidden use of 'books'. Sorry, but _I_ play chess also. and _I_ remember specific sequences of opening moves, from studying them in books like MCO, etc. I don't know how _you_ play chess, and I don't care. But I do know how _people_ play chess, and they _definitely_ rely on memory as one component of their skill... > >> >> >> >>> >>>Now, we have still another problem, I know of. Nowhere FIDE defines exactly what >>>it understands under a computer program or a chess computer. This is not >>>untypical for our social life. Institutions often tend to act on demand. They >>>react but don't act with juridical laws in advance. FIDE and the national >>>societies simply forbade the participation of computers in its team >>>championships. Period. Now it's NOT FIDE who should change the rules, it would >>>be our task in computerchess for trying to establish a different reality by >>>transformating our historical concept about chess programs and computers. So, if >>>you write that no rules exist against, but in reality computerchess is forbidden >>>in official championchips and you are not interested in the re-entry, we surely >>>cannot debate successfully. My purpose is that computerchess could again take >>>part. >>> >> >>Computers were disallowed in FIDE years ago. Not because of their "cheating" >>but because of the problems they bring with them. USCF still allows computers >>to play in rated events... and they have for the last 40+ years... > >Are you referring to the long-distance connections to the computer? BTW you're a >chessplayer too, and not GM, what is your opinion in that question? Are you >happy with the comps to read in books during the game? Wouldn't you be much >better in chess if you could do the same? > I am referring to the phone connection, the space required by a computer, the noise it makes, the confusion it adds, the interest in its games and screen output by spectators, the rule that says that players can "opt out" of playing the machine prior to the first round, which makes pairings very complicated in the last few rounds. Etc... _My_ "comp" doesn't "read in moves during a game". It "studies" the games prior to playing just like a human. It analyzes who won, who lost, what the various positions looked like. It then plays those moves, and then remembers how the resulting positions actually worked out in a game (learning). It does _exactly_ what I as a human do... _exactly_... Just better in some ways. But the same nonethelsss.. > > >> >> >> >> >>>Please try to show a little tolerance for the small chance of perhaps finding a >>>consense for new methods and regulations in computerchess. >>> >>>If however in the CCC you definded such trials as most unwanted, because nobody >>>would be interested in such participation in human tournaments I'd surely accept >>>such politics. I'm not debating to disturb but to find solutions for >>>computerchess lovers. The decision lies in the power of you programmers anyway. >>>But it's strange. Recent matches between human players and comps showed me that >>>the interest among programmers is great to get such chances too. Also the so >>>called amateur programmers. Of course I agree that it's looking strange that you >>>seem to have closed this chapter for you and I - without possession of own >>>program - try to find out of a dead-end of computerchess. >>> >>>If you could demonstrate that a discussion is really moot because no change >>>whatever could influence FIDE and the organizers of the tournaments, then we can >>>all save precious time, here I agree with you. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>\ >>This argument has already been tried and found wanting. There is no reason >>to do as you love to do, and just go over it in circles, again and again and >>again... and when your opponent gets tired and leaves, you then claim victory >>by perseverence rather than victory by being right. > >Are you talking of me or yourself? I did never do that. It is all available in r.g.c.c archives. You have brought this up several times. Same arguments. Same acrimony. Nothing new. So yes you _did_ do that. This is just the N+1'th instantiation of the same old stuff... > But again, if you >decided that the whole topic would be unwanted in this computerchess group, then >I would respect your decision at once. If however a problem has many different >aspects then you might have a little tolerance for all aspects, also if they >might seem similar from your angle to you. For me it's almost an insult, if >someone accuses me of running in circles when I'm doing my best to climb up the >spiral. It's a question of dimensions. Nohing special. ;) > >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.