Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:51:11 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 04:44:28, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 18:13:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: ><snipped> >>>Here is the list of the programs above 2600. >>>You can see that the porgrams played usually more than 400 games >> >>Yes, Uri, I knew it. But! I wrote "that could be added up". > >I did not understand what you mean by "could be added up" so I ignored it. >I understand your point that learning is important in their matches when it is >not important in real tournaments when programs are allowed to change book >between games. Although we have almost coincidence, I can always find new divergences and new ideas to explain certain things. So the debate isn't boring at all. The new idea here is the tendency of CC experts, and you are one of them, to always finding new tricks to cripple human chess. I do not say that this crippling is the ratio of CC and a conscient behaviour. It's more a fallacy if you once concentrate too much on 'performance' without reflecting the overall situation in chess. For me CC is a part of chess. Let me elaborate this point. For me the learning function was a technology which allowed the chess program to come closer to correct chess! But if I read you and others, I understand that the learning has only one single goal, namely to prevent that a clever opponent could repeat certain lines _no matter_ if the line itself is good or bad objectively, but because later, perhaps due to some different failure, the game was lost. For me, honestly, this is a pervert understanding of chess. I for one would say that if objectively the position is good, or at least not bad, it shouldn't be excluded by the learning function only because later the game was lost. The perversion is even that if a certain continuation is favorable for the machine, that it's still deactivated because tue to later events the game can't be kept open by the machine. This is foolish! I would recommand that the programmers should better study possibilities how they could teach their progs to understand the positions of such lines. Please take all what I write with the certainty that I do not know exactly what really happens with e.g. the learning function. So please do not reject the whole context only because a technical detail might be false. It should also be clear that I do not address you in particular, since you are trying to get to the meant most of the time. Because otherwise we end up in endless circles of repeatitions. Let me mention the books too. I am not against books! But I am against books whose sole meaning is to put the machine into the position to play position that they couldn't play out of principal weaknesses. This is what I call cheating or boasting or fraud, all terms please without juridical implications but only in relation to fairness and gentleman sports. - For me it is absolutely out of imagination why CC experts are using such technology. Is it the dream of perfection? I don't think so, because why then CC experts can sleep a single night without nightmares when they think of the known absolute weaknesses of the progs. Why don't they concentrate on these weaknesses instead of using GM books, whose deep meaning the machine can't understand at all!? I'm saying that human GM are still able, inspite of all GM books, to let the machine misdirected. For the aspects of soundness and also authenticity it's a real mess to watch the CC experts trying to survive with the motto "Let's ope that the opponent doesn't find our most stupid sides...". Honestly this is not the plan of human chess at its best. However, here I agree, it's the daily reality for certain chessplayers who prepare certain openings in the libraries after many outside hints about the expected favorites of the opponents, and who are then feeling as if they were bluffing in a poker match. It's like gambling. Real chessplayers do not gamble. They play the berst chess they could and that even not particularly dependent of the person of the the next opponent. In short, for me CC is lacking maturity! But this isn't my main argument yet! The argument number one is that CC has a complete misconception of chess. Chess is not about gambling. Chess is a game depending of preparation and hard work. GM players don't need their perfect memory for the GM books. These books so to speak are the graveyard of the past in chess. But what the actual chess is all about, that is the world of the home preparations against the different opponents. Of course you can't find this world in publicly available books! So all this is a secret world until it's possible to play the new analysis. Now I would beg the CC community to think about the preparations CC is doing. Where are the GM who are working for the CC experts. Or are CC experts believing in Bob Hyatt's understanding of analysis? Is it really sufficient if a good amateur player with surely Elo below 2000 takes a look and realizes that the king safety is good or bad? I think that there is a wide gap between GM analyses and such superficial terms. With wide I mean continental shifts not centimeters. Because chess is always about concrete analyses. There is no such thing as king safety!! The king is safe if the analysis is proving that the king has at least one extra tempo. Of course early mistakes could make the whole position lost. No matter if the king safety still is looking good. Now, CC experts are telling the books to not play such mistakes? And that is working against GM? You bet! As I said over and over again, this period has not even begun by far. Namely the backstroke of GM against the quality of CC books! So, to save much sorrow for the CC experts, I would recommand to start directly with sound chess and not relying on such book tricks. Because each trick has the solution for a counterstrike. Or is it so satisfying to win some show events with tricks against human opponents who are not at all prepared? By all means CC experts must find solutions for the typical weaknesses of the machines. Otherwise it's a hopeless fight against GM players. So, is this understandable, Uri? It is not my intention to go into the details of the learning function or the books, if the basics are totally false. Of course the technology is fantastic for the usual clients. But against GM it's not sufficient to hide the weaknesses in a clever manner. If there _is_ a solution the GM will find 'em! Of course only if enough is at stake. > >I think that it may be interesting to test programs also when they do not start >from the initial position but from random positions from gm-gm games. Sure, a good training for the research of the CC weaknesses. > ><snipped> >>>You can find list of human-calibaeration results from 1987-1991 when 24 old >>>programs played against humans and got rating based on average number of game >>>that is slightly more than 10 games for program but unfortunately there are >>>only results and no games when chris carason games do not include the games that >>>they talk about. >> >>That isn't even the most interesting thing. I take it for granted that they >>played these games. But. You can't take some 20 masters from Sweden and let them >>play a few skittles. This is not calibration. It's a joke. Do you think that >>"masters" had something to fear from commercial progs? I don't think so. > >I believe that masters are weaker than the chess programs of today not because >of opening book. >I expect masters to lose against programs also in shuffle chess. Fine. Bobby Fischer is your opponent then. He is thinking that also in shuffle chess, without books, humans are stronger! Of course Matthias Wüllenweber is on your side and with F. Friedel (after his Adorjan experiments). I am on the side of Fischer. > >The picture may be different for grandmasters if they get money for winning. > ><snipped> >>>>And now the height is ok? How did you prove it? >>> >>>I did not prove it but I think that most people agree that 2841 for Fritz7 on >>>A1200 is at least 100 elo too high so reducing the number by 100 elo reduce the >>>difference relative to humans. >> >>Uri, Uri! I drives tears in my eyes to see you argue so carefully. But you are >>already intoxicated. Please subtract 300 Elo numbers and then we can start the >>debate. > >I do not say that the numbers are correct but only that they are closer to >the truth relative to the case they were not reducing the list by 100 elo. > > Just my opinion. Other numbers are completely unrealistic. Or did you >>ever see events over a longer period of time, at tournament level, and with real >>money at stake? And most of all, did you see fair rules? The rules are still >>coming from the old days when progs were no real opponents. > > >I believe that humans could perform better when there is money at stake(see the >result of smirin against computers). Of course. But it would work even better if we could establish a certain tradition for such mixed events. Even for a million dollars a sane player would not leave his normal routine. You can't throw your whole past into a trash. > >I do not think that no opening book is a fair rule. But books without doctored lines a comp could never find! >If you want to find the level of programs without opening the only way is to >play a match not from the opening position when both sides do not know the >opening position and I doubt if GM's who never played 1.e4 c5 with black are >going to play well when they need suddenly to play a position from the swesnikov >that they never learned. Yes, that's true. But here we touch again the question what is chess. Is it gambling or preparation and hard work? I prefer the latter. And you too, I know that. :) Rolf Tueschen > >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.