Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:01:03 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. > No... But I assume you don't _really_ play chess so that you don't understand what goes on. For example, I _frequently_ used to prepare openings for specific opponents. If my opponent liked tactics, he wouldn't get 'em from me, he would get a positional struggle. If my opponent hated tactics, he would get gambits from me. That is a _part_ of the game. A human can decide to play aggressive one game, passive the next, or whatever he wants, to keep his opponent off-balance. If the game is important, I might choose to try something I haven't tried before, if I know my opponent is prepared for my normal opening choices. The computer doesn't behave like that, as it is not "aware" of anything about its opponent, yet. The ability to "tweak" it gives it a "pseudo-awareness" thru the programmer. Nothing more... > > >>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_. "conscience" is not an issue. >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. I won't go that far. Your last sentence is certainly true. But then have you ever watched a GM play a weaker player? He slams pieces. He slams the clock. He grimaces and stares at his opponent? Psychology? You betcha... Computers _do_ have a chance against GM players. IE I would not mind playing Crafty in a series of FIDE events. How would it do? No idea. But it would certainly "evolve" between tournaments as I learn from the previous games and try to improve it. It is certainly more than posisble that a computer could do well. Deep Thought is such an example, with its Fredkin II prize performance in _many_ GM events. And it was _certainly_ undergoing changes between events, if not between rounds. Speaking for myself, I really don't do much between rounds. In years past, if I lost a game I might adjust the opening book so that I wouldn't repeat the opening the next round, but since I did the book-learning stuff, that is unnecessary. Against strong computers I might have Crafty play off-beat openings to avoid their very good book preparation. And if I knew a GM (Roman for example) like something like the London system, I might try to give him something that would make that difficult to reach. But _if_ I saw something that looked really bad, or even which might be classified as an outright bug, I would certainly exercise my right to fix it between rounds... Which the Fritz guys can't do... But which a human certainly can. IE Kramnik can certainly choose to not go for a specific type of position, once he realizes that the machine is going to drub him if he does. The program needs that same sort of protection, since it can't provide it itself (yet). > > > > >>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. I simply want a match that is as fair as possible. Between rounds, Kasparov could walk up to Kramnik and say "I noticed that it seemed to be happy with the position where you had lots of isolated pawns but a terrific attack brewing." Kramnik could take that comment and adjust his play in the next round. Is that fair? If so, then why can't I "say" something similar to Crafty between rounds??? > > > > > >>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. I don't follow the above, so I won't comment... > > >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 I may be a "dino" but I am not yet "extinct". :)
This page took 0.01 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.