Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:52:48 08/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 07:43:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 27, 2002 at 06:51:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 do not think that programmers in general are not interested in fixing the >weaknesses of programs in the opening but it is not a simple task. > >programmers change the evaluation function of chess programs to do them better. > >I think that having an epd file of the most common positions in human-human >games that most programs cannot find the right move in dew minutes may be a good >idea. > >I believe that it is possible to fix the evaluation and the search rules of >programs in order to help them to find the right moves. If you meant that these positions are added to the GM books with looong variations included, all coming from human masters and not from the program itself, I would not appreciate it. If you add just one single move to such positions, the situation would be better, but not sufficient for computerchess. The main point is this, why not restrincting the openings to lines a computer are doing good or at least not too bad. Of course if you add certain knowledge for certain typical strategical problems this would be most welcomed. But GM books from human chess as far as computers would play totally different continuations leading to disadvantages are not fair. I know the argument that _all_ ingredients in computers are man-made and therefore GM books should be allowed. I am against such a view. Of course the Elo numbers will be much higher this way, but the performance against GM will still be bad, because the GM books are the graveyard of the _past_ of human chess and not a representation of most modern analyses. 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.