Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:30:35 09/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 13:08:13, Matthew Hull wrote: >On September 09, 2002 at 12:25:03, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On September 09, 2002 at 11:03:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 09, 2002 at 10:12:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On September 09, 2002 at 08:59:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>I don't agree. I _knew_ Tinsley. (...) >>>>>He was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that The final Chinook was better >>>>>than he was, because of the big endgame tables they had constructed. (...) >>>> >>>>Are you sure that Tinsley meant "better" or better? What is the performance of >>>>the machine if it can use the _perfect_ tables? What has it to do with playing >>>>checkers? Didn't Tinsley assume with all the rights in the World, that he was >>>>still the best player? >>> >>>Nope. In fact he resigned his official title so that he could play Chinook >>>in a man vs machine match. And he was quite clear on the "better" issue. No >>>doubt in his mind whatsoever, any more than he doubted that Cray Blitz could >>>mount his head on the den wall if it wanted to (in chess). :) >>> >>>The most impressive thing about Tinsley, besides his incredible reign as WC, >>>was his basic honesty and lack of arrogance... >> >>Good to know! >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>Tables for endgames, at least in chess, had been calculated to the perfect end. >>>>BTW what is the specific achievement of a programmer, having a finite room of >>>>data, having access to a super computer, having a few months of computer time >>>>free for each round? What is the sense to compare such a perfect automat with a >>>>human genius? Since you were part of the branch as such, what gave you the >>>>scientifical kick out of it? I mean could we compare it with the creation of a >>>>logarithm table we all had back in school? Where is the creative element? And >>>>finally the same question as last year - what is the kick to let a machine >>>>participate with such help in human tournaments? The last question just to have >>>>it complete the collection. No nitpick meant, honestly. >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>>I don't think there is any intent to "compare" a program using endgame tables >>>to a human, calculating on his own, and drawing any conclusions whatsoever, >>>other than "which is the stronger player, period." Man/Axe were soundly beaten >>>by the chainsaw. Man/horse were soundly beaten by the automobile. Yet no one >>>seriously considers the automobile to be superior to the horse in any type of >>>"equal" comparison because they can't be compared. >> >>First, your position is the minimum that should be taught for the sake of fair >>play. But I would be content if the following could be included. Again, this is >>not out of lack of respect for the class of programmers, it's IMO a trivial >>analysis. A computer shouldn't be compared to automobiles. Automobiles are >>surely 'faster' than horses but why is it better? Because it has more power. So >>far so good. This is fair and then the end of such a race. >> >>Now let's see what is new with computers. (You know that I am not a chess >>programmer, so please let's talk about the ideas as such.) >> >>I remember some older statements where experts tried to teach me that a computer >>by definition "read" or used databases. I couldn't follow, because I saw a >>difference in just "reading" the perfect results for a position and playing >>chess with calculating the position with the actually possible depth. >>For the latter I accept man vs machine competition, but only for this. The >>moment perfect solutions come into the game, it is no longer playing it's simply >>- -ok, I leave out the term. Now I wished to know if the differentiation is ok >>and accepted in CC. Just copying perfect moves and playing on the base of >>calculating... >> > > >Remember. Even the tables had to be calculated by a computer. For chess, >someone has written a utility for endgame analysis and has saved the results in >a table. It's bigger, but not unlike a lot of table generation that occurs at >program startup in many chess engines. That kind of data need only be generated >once, and the procedure is usually trivial in concept, though expensive in >resources. > >In UNIX, many applications are just agglomerations of utilities written by >various programmers, but the sum of the disparate parts makes a new whole, for >which the designer is usually credited. > >For tablebases, programmers are in effect, including that utility in their >program startup. It's not entirely unlike the various learning algorithms which >save the results of previous calculations for future benefit. Humans call this >"wisdom from experience", or "education". By including the tablebases, programs >are in effect "going to school" to "learn" from another program's "experience". > >Is not the greatest _advantage_ of the Grandmaster his phenomenal memory, not >only of his own games but the games of others? > >:-) Doesn't work here with the endgame tables. That is what Nunn is saying: it's impossible for humans to find any ratio in the long lines in certain perfect endgames. So, without a meaning there is no way to learn. Do you remember the research by De Groot? That GM couldn't memorize nonsense positions as bad as weak amateurs? - But I agree with you. Eidetics allows GM to have perfect memory as well. ;) Rolf Tueschen > >Regards, > > >>Back to checkers and Tinsley. I thought that he still was the better player. He >>had no perfect tables. And without these tables Chinook would have been much >>weaker. So we can conclude that Tinsley was the better player - without the >>tables being counted. I think that's trivial. >> >>Let's go back to education in school and university. Leaving eidetic people >>aside. I know for sure that you would never accept if students cheated with all >>kind of hidden help during examinations. You would say that students should be >>able to "think" for the correct answers. Looking at the help and then telling >>what is written there as perfect answer, this isn't making any sense. >> >>So, this is the ethic we all know and obey to. >> >>(NB the following is about competition and _not_ tools for training and other >>helps for players.) >> >>How could you explain why it is so difficult to convince chess programmers and >>probably checkers programmers too, that the usage of "perfect" databases in >>tournaments is absolutely odd tradition and should be regarded as unethical? >>What is the basic influence in computer sciences that leads people to believe >>that such a technique could be allowed? I did never understand that. For me it's >>in the same way clear as it's clear that medical patients are never insulted for >>their illness - even if it was caused through prior heavy smoking or some such. >>We would never raise any critic in the direct communication with the patient. Of >>course we can make conclusions for prevention campaigns against smoking etc. >> >>So, let me repeat, everywhere where I made my proposals, people from CC reacted >>as if I had said the worst I could say in CC. For most it was not even a >>question at all, it was immediately viewed as muckraking. And I always thought, >>that CC at times could be similar in practice to religious or political sects. >> >>Let me give a final addition in form of an analogy for the automobile example. >>Usage of perfect tables is as if the engineers of the automobile's side would >>organize the following for the race against horses. The race is held on a steep >>street which is in addition carefully frozen!! >> >>What would you say, if such events were organized? Would you still believe that >>it's clear who is better, because automobiles are faster than horses? Or would >>you say, no, this way the competition has become a bit unfair? >> >>NB that I do not want that automobiles should use no fuel for the race, all I >>want is that the horse has a fair chance to run without the automobile has a >>surplus advantage. >> >>Tables are such surplus advantages in my eyes and not integrated part of >>computer machines as such. For the moment they give the machine an unfair edge. >> >>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.