Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:07:52 06/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2002 at 18:15:31, Roy Eassa wrote: > >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. Roy, honestly, I wouldn't be happy if people followed me out of my good propaganda or stuff like that. You are right, I write a little reflection and I expect or hope someone clever enough to understand the main points. The reason? I have found out, that people would never ever like to change their opinions because they make life easier, because thinking seems to be real hard working. So I wait until someone discovers by his own thinking what could be hidden in my postings. That is a more Socratian method. I'm not that perfect already to hide my points in aphorisms. Thank you very much however! Rolf Tueschen > > > > >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.