Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 15:15:31 06/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
Rolf, I mostly understand what you have been saying. Sometimes your posts are so lengthy that the key idea gets lost. Here's a key quote from you: "I do not want to eliminate all technical or programming tricks... The only thing I want to exclude is the rather primitive copying and pasting of complete results from human chess." This is IMHO a reasonable stance. Some people may have a different opinion than yours (I'm not sure of my own view on this topic), but your statement does NOT seem unreasonable to me. On June 03, 2002 at 17:45:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 02, 2002 at 22:37:35, pavel wrote: > >>On June 02, 2002 at 17:49:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On June 02, 2002 at 17:34:10, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>At http://kramnik.homestead.com/Fujitsu.html, Kramnik is quoted as saying: >>>> >>>>"It is much more difficult to prepare against a computer than against a human >>>>opponent. When I play GMs I prepare the openings which belong to my repertoire >>>>and which I consider to be good. Against a computer the same method is not so >>>>convenient partly due to the fact that computer is allowed to check huge opening >>>>databases during the game that may include specific preparation against my >>>>favorite variations. It is also important to understand that even if my analysis >>>>may be quite good I can't simply remember all of them so it looks dangerous to >>>>enter into a theoretical opening battle." >>>> >>>>This raises the question: Will DF have real-time access to considerably MORE >>>>than an opening book during the play of the match games? Specifically, will DF >>>>be able to study a database such as Megabase 2002 **during** these games? >>>> >>>>If it is true, then one might wonder what the outcome of the match would prove. >>>>Normal DF programs do not have such access, nor do they [presumably] incorporate >>>>software to peruse and evaluate database games. Although questions of morality >>>>are surely dead end and pointless, it would seem important that the match >>>>realistically represent future human/computer matches. If DF wins, one might >>>>wonder whether or not it might have won with a normal opening book and nothing >>>>else. >>>> >>>>Normally, when Kramnik, or anybody else, plays against a commercial version of >>>>any chess engine, he is playing against an opening book which is NOT optimized >>>>for play against any one human. >>>> >>>>However, DF being given an “anti-Kramnik” opening book should not be deemed >>>>unreasonable because that is no different from what happens in human-human >>>>matches. For example, when Kasparov prepared for his ill-fated match against >>>>Kramnik, Kasparov prepared and memorized his own “secret” anti-Kramnik opening >>>>book. This sort of thing is normal in all human-human matches. DF would be >>>>unfairly handicapped if DF were to be denied the use of it’s own "secret" >>>>anti-Kramnik opening book. >>>> >>>>As to who prepares DF’s anti-Kramnik opening book . . . Well, that too is not >>>>much different from what is done in preparation for high level human-human >>>>matches. The players typically have a team of GMs working on this long before >>>>the match. >>>> >>>>So, that leaves the issue of appropriateness and wisdom of letting DF use a >>>>Megabase database during the game. >>>> >>>>After all, this is not supposed to be an “Advanced Chess” match. Is it? >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>> >>>Of course it is, but only for the machine's side! ;-) >>> >>>That's why I wanted to inspire a change in traditional computerchess. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >>Few things I would like to note: >> >> Though theoritically everything about chess that human understands can be >>programmed in to computers, Computer's way of "thinking" and human's way of >>"thinking" is not the same. >> >>IMO if the intention is to make computers adapt human's kind of play, in order >>to make it look 'fair'; then maybe we should also program computers to "snort" >>while its opponent makes mistakes. Computers should also have an option to go to >>the restroom during the game, computers should not be allowed to think more than >>5-6 positions per mins, like humans. They should have to use metal hands >>attached to their monitor so that they can move by themselves. They should also >>be able to cover their monitors with 2 hands when they make serious blunders >>(ie,kasparov). You should also put a glass of water in front of Fritz, as you >>would put in front of Kramnik.They should also be able to register under FIDE, >>and be eligible to have ratings and GM norms. >> >>The point is you cannot compare humans with computers. Though they play the same >>game, they play it differantly. >> >>Besides, "Everything is fair in love and war" >> >>cheers, >>pavs ;) > >Hey, Pavel, thanks for your contribution. I've understood and agree with you for >almost all what you wrote. Let me please try it one more time to explain where >we differ. > >IMO the correct statement that we cannot compare humans with computers >nevertheless isn't supportant the following logic. > >If we are different in computerchess we can do whatever we want resp. what is in >our tradition. For example we have the right to add certain tricks or data from >human chess, what a computer program with the actual strength is unable to >produce on its own. Take for example a special opening line, where all comps in >2002 would go wrong, it schould be a matter of honour to either leave the line >totally out of the book or to let the machine play what it wants. > >Now people say, but then Rolf, we can't make a computer program at all, because >all what we implement is "man-made". My answer. This is not a fair argument. >Because I do not want to eliminate all technical or programming tricks or the >implements automatically taken from other collegues. The only thing I want to >exclude is the rather primitive copying and pasting of complete results from >human chess. If you are clever enough to implement a tool that could find the >same line without knowing the result then this would be fine with me. It would >be fair. You know well, Pavel, that chessplayers have not the right to use the >help of a computer during play. With your logic from above humans should be >allowed to use a computer during play. But I doubt you would support this. >Because this is no longer human chess. It has a totally different name, as we >know. > >For me, excuse me, this single point is so simple that I have difficulties to >understand why people in computerchess can't understand. > >Rolf Tueschen
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.