Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 06:05:31 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 05:33:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 10, 2002 at 22:48:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>I never said he was doing that, and hope I never implied I thought he was. He >>simply has found weaknesses that lead to predictable play in particular types of >>positions, whatever they may be. The rules prevent _any_ changes to the program >>excepting for the opening book, and changing the opening book would only be an >>attempt at dodging around a problem rather than doing something to change the >>basic way the program behaves... > >To me it seems that you are here on the same error than in SSDF statistics and >Elo. The pattern I discovered is this, you can't accept that certain things >can't be done! And then your reaction is _not_ to support a general change in >the approach, but you say "the approach, how we always did it in the past, is >correct and if human players won't accept _our_ tradition, then bad for them, >_we_ simply won't play". >Let me speak it out. You'd hate to lose the possibility to tweak and twist, so >that you could always confuse a human chess player. Because that is no longer >about _chess_ but about gambling and psyching out the human player. >This is most ridiculous because you yourself are the expert for the whole topic >of CC who is never tired to explain that chess programs are not yet as strong as >human GM players. But instead of accepting the truth in its complete meaning you >are completely out of your mind the moment you are fantazising a match where >Crafty or Cray Blitz could be involved. In short: split interests. > > > >>Yes it [Crafty] has weaknesses. But _not_ the same >>weaknesses as Fritz. It understands a lot about majorities, candidates, pawns >>on wings, etc... Enough that it would take him time to discover what it didn't >>understand, and he only has _eight_ games to do that... Not enough with me >>tweaking between rounds to keep things off-balance. > > >You couldn't give a more honest confession. I think the hype about DB2 is only >understandable with that confession. In that light your statement that Kasparov >should simply have managed to get a better contract is in itself untrue! Because >for IBM/Hsu and you yourself the tweaking in little show events is the main >remedy to calm your own, your collegues and the many lovers of CC _conscience_. It's no different than human world champion contenders analysing with the aid of their human or computer helpers to adjust play between games in a match. Program tweaking during a match does not make the program stronger, it just adjusts it's play to the particular opponent, JUST LIKE HUMANS DO. I think your argument is not logical. >All know exactly that no machine could become dangerous for a human GM in a fair >match. Your only chance is the tweaking and twisting, I would call it the >psyching out mode, or the confusional mode. > > > > >>The problem is, he has found a "style" of play that minimizes his chances for >>errors, because he has found that without queens, a program that relies on >>aggressive >>play suddenly becomes clueless when the attacking chances are not present. And >>he >>_knows_ that before he starts the match. Were this my program, he would not >>because >>I simply would not have agreed to such a ridiculous set of rules. Of course, he >>would >>never play Crafty anyway because he wanted those rules and I would never have >>agreed to them, so end of match before it could get started... > >That was confession Part II. > >If your machine is weaker than GM then you are not ready yet to give up all >hopes. No, then you either try to tweak and twist or you deny a match at all. Or >you dismantle the whole machine after 6 games only... Hsu and Bob are well in >the same boat here. Really? Isit all about gambling? I thought it were about >chess. > > > > > >>Not even close. Kasparov complained because deep blue seemed to "change". In >>one >>game it seemed to evaluate bishops too high, in the next, not high enough. That >>is enough >>to disrupt a plan, and if you only have 8 games to develop a plan, I believe he >>would have >>a _much_ harder time. Yes, I believe he would win. He might even win with the >>same >>margin of victory. But he would definitely have to "work" for the victories, >>rather than >>using pre-obtained knowledge to steer the program into never-never land with >>little >>chance of anything bad happening at all. > > >It is very painful to read you here. It's so mean and average (as if Kramnik >would not show real chess, but only genral preppy stuff). Here we are talking >about a chess master, an artist, and there we have the tweaker & twister. Who is >playing God. Just by some primitive gambling tricks.You seem to have no respect >for the artistic mastership of human chess GM! No matter what you say on >different occasions. I know! You will quote thousands of different phrases. But >as in the question of SSDF,you simply can't understand that you can't follow two >different choices. One could only be true! Either something is true or wrong. >And if something is wrong then you can't define it as the practical best. Try to >implement as many code you like where your program may gamble, but stop to >gamble yourself. > > >Excuse me, but do not think for a second that I would tell you such thoughts if >I were thinking that you are lost in such debates. Certain ideas must simply be >expressed to become new and acceptable even for such dinos like you. > >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.