Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:43:32 07/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2002 at 07:36:08, GuyHaworth wrote: > >Deep Blue II beat Kasparov fair and square ... GK should not imply otherwise if >he is. > >However, he is probably correct in saying that silicon chess players are not yet >as good as carbon ones. > >The misguided impression that computers are now better than the best humans has, >in the recent past, arguably subtracted interested from: > >a) computer-computer chess > >b) computer-human chess, and maybe even > >c) human-human chess. > >Maybe FIDE, the ICGA and Kasparov together should correct that impression, and >jointly declare that: > >a) the comparison of the best human and computer chess players is still an >'open question' and that > >b) they will work together to facilitate further human-computer events > > >An official recognition by FIDE that ... > >computers, via databases, the web, chess-servers, chess-engines, and events >involving computers, have added value to the world of chess > >... would be most welcome. > > >g First of all I want to say that I had planned to visit Maastricht just for your gig about the statistics in testing. You are for me the better alternative to SSDF. I like your 'silence' and abstinance from loud ballyhoo. So I read with interest what you had to comment on Kasparov and the basic question. Honestly I was disappointed. At the end of your article there is the secret nobody wants to talk about. I wonder why you did never ask yourself the same questions I have. Because there is a big confusion about what the entity is like, that we are talking about. I am sure that human chessplayers and the chess organisations have absolutely no difficulties in accepting the chess engines (either chess programs or machines like DEEP BLUE). But I see the reason for the difficulties you mentioned. (I won't repeat all I have written about this topic - people can read the material here in the archives and also in R.G.C.C., just take a look in Google, and also in my Mosaik in "Schachcomputerwelt".) The chess engine or machine is not the center of interest for debates. What causes problems are the incredibly huge opening books (from GM-practice!) and the table bases. I hope that you as expert will understand that the engine (although made by man) is honest while the mentioned databases are dishonest because they allow a _direct access_ to data during a chessgame, which is forbidden according to the rules of chess. Or would you allow the chessplayers to use a computer during play? Ok, if a programmer is able to create a code that is able to do all the calculations in tournament time, it would be another story. Usually people here, in special programmers, don't understand why a machine shouldn't be allowed to make use of its memory. It is because I said often enough that the databases contain data _no_ machine would ever understand and accept simply because it's too deep even for the DEEP ones. Only laymen in chess could argue that chessplayers usually play stuff they didn't understand. This is chess for the under 1500 players or beginners. All others do their own analyses. So with the "extra" data computerchess gets into a kind of pretension mode. This still wouldn't be a real problem for the GM players but then it is tradition in computerchess that the "extra" data could be tweecked and twisted at will during rounds and events. With this then computerchess enters the sphreres of gambling simply because a human chess giant must have a certain chance to prepare himself. Ok, chess is not exactly backgammon (where in a _single_ game a total newbie could well beat the World Champion) but with the usual good strength of the engines alone the entities with "tweecked extra" data it's of no interest for chessplayers. They had to prepare for too long just for the show-effect. Even for money nobody is willing to do that, except Kramnik, who was stupid enough to say good-bye to real chess and who is greedy on the money now. (We must make a general difference between book data for training and data in matches.) I repeat honestly: If computerchess won't change the "extra tweeked" stuff chessplayers won't accept machines in official tournament chess. (Letting completely aside the main problem of the qualification for chess entities.) So - as I said long ago, the victory of DEEP BLUE 2 was the end of honest relations between computerchess and human tournament chess. Human chessplayers are fed up with gambling ideas of people who do not even know how to play chess. A completely normal human behavior. Nobody likes it to be beaten by entities who know provenly not much about real chess but who rely mainly on perfect databases... in tweeked mode. 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.