Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:34:17 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 15:52:58, martin fierz wrote: >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 The first one that comes to mind is GM Walter Browne. That should be enough for anyone having played him. :) > > > > >>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.