Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:01:20 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 14:00:03, Dana Turnmire wrote: >On October 19, 2002 at 13:33:12, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On October 19, 2002 at 12:46:34, Dana Turnmire wrote: >> >>>How well would a computer program do against the top grandmasters if it had to >>>generate its own moves from start to finish without human intervention in the >>>opening play? Uri Blass said he didn't put much stock in openings books. I'm a >>>little surprised by that statment since it seems everyone puts such emphasis on >>>what opening book should be used etc. >>> >>>Humans have to learn and memorize the best lines for openings. Why should >>>humans play that part of the game for the computer? I understand the purpose >>>for opening books but to find out if computers are really superior to humans >>>shouldn't the computers have to learn and memorize the best opening moves just >>>as all humans have to do? >> >>This is kind of a "matter of opinion" issue IMO, but I don't think that opening >>books or endgame tablebases shouldn't be allowed. First, it's not clear whether >>or not they should be allowed in the first place. Some say yes, some say no. I >>think it's just another part of memory, just like humans have. The human chess >>players learned from other games and have their own "opening book" too. No top >>human chess player plays without his/her own opening book. It's just stored in a >>different medium. Secondly, how would you ever enforce such a rule? If you say, >>"can't query external files" then I can just dump my entire opening book into my >>executable, and I'm not breaking any rules. I don't see anything wrong with it >>in the first place, and I think it would be a nightmare trying to create rules >>and enforce those rules. >> >>I think we often mistake "artificial intelligence" for "intelligence simulated >>by a computer algorithm". If you could get a biological "machine" to play chess, >>now it's not so clear where "books" and "databases" start or end, and where the >>"thinking" takes place. Humans do the same thing that a computer chess program >>does, and the fact that it's on a computer and not some other medium shouldn't >>matter IMO. If a computer has a conversation with me, and all it does is look up >>sentence fragments from a database and piece them together, but it passes a >>turing test, that's AI, and it doesn't matter that it uses a database as opposed >>to some other method. >> >>Russell > >No top >>human chess player plays without his/her own opening book. It's just stored in a >>different medium. > >True but to make it truly fair shouldn't a GM be allowed access to an opening >book also? The computer is allowed to play it perfectly because it written down >and the computer is sitting there reading from its book whereas the human must >rely strictly on memory. In other words it's like going to a tournament and >even though both players have studied the opening only one player is allowed to >actually use a manual to play with which allows for perfect opening play. I >guess this is getting to much like computer assisted tournaments. I agree with the last paragraph. But it doesn't go far enough because humans are incapable of accessing a database fast. To make it as fair as can be done practically, I would advocate that the human have his/her own "computer" which could access an opening book but not a chess engine. If the human were allowed to have a chess engine at his/her disposal, then the issue of human vs computer would be muddied. Let the human have fast access to an opening book, only. Bob D.
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.