Author: martin fierz
Date: 12:52:58 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 13:01:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... i have played something like 20 GMs in my chess career. i have not had any of this happen even once. i don't know what kind of GMs you have in mind, but "normal" GMs don't do that! aloha martin >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 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.