Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:29:26 01/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2003 at 06:27:51, Frank Phillips wrote: >On January 26, 2003 at 05:30:01, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>>Unless I have misunderstood the contract, this is a modified version of chess to >>>that defined by the standard rules, which nowhere states that because one side >>>knows that the game is drawn with perfect play then it shall be declared a draw >>>- even if the other side does not know or cannot demonstrate it. >> >>Presumably then, Kasparov could show up with his own set of tablebases, and >>consult them during the match? Maybe he has a particular ending he's weak in. Or >>do only Junior's tablebases count? > >I thought this was man versus machine. Humankind advantages and disadvantages >versus machine advantages and disadvantages. See who prevails. This is a good example for delusions and pure wishful thinking in CC. At first this sounds absolutely in order. I will prove now why it is in reality a cheat with a logical fallacy. Let's describe the conditions. I. We have a long tradition in human chess. Rules have been made. These rules, normaly that must not be pointed out, are made for two human chessplayers. In special to prevent that one player takes unfair advantages from outer help. Books, other documents or conversation with collegues. II. In computerchess people saw directly that without "books" taken from human chess computers could not play sound chess at all. I mean alone based on their engine [which is different nowadays, at least a bit]. So it was clear, also in the understanding of computer sciences, that files, yes, whole databases could well be added to the chess engine. Today endgame tablebases have been successfully implemented so that the computer is now prepared to play perfect chess the moment he gets the access to the tables. This is already possible long before the concrete chess position is on the board. Consequence: chess is being played only in between the zones of perfect knowledge [ok, not for me because I often discussed that for the super GM the given opening theory is always the picture from the past, but not the actual possible because this is exactly researched by these masters - and then quickly copied and pasted by the CC people; but it is clear thaqt the GM have always the advance]. Now with a certain irony CC people sigh that in the past no GM ever complained that something is wrong with the addings, but the moment they began to lose, they were against these hybrides. Is this a correct picture of the real situation? Of course not. III. The truth is that a) for comp - comp matches the addings are ok in a way [but only in a way because that would be nonsense if the engines would be equally strong and the differences would be defined only by the addings, books and learning features etc.] b) for comp - human matches we should ask which rules are respected. Strictly after the FIDE rules books and tables would be forbidden. Let me explain why the situation in b) is extremely unfair for the masses of normal players in both respects (book and tables) and even for super GM in respect of the tables, always because of the perfect play while humans, even super GM are unable to play perfectly [depending on the difficulty of endings]. IV. We have a logical fallacy if we simply state that a match between comp and human should be played so that each side plays after the rules of its side. Because FIDE rules are made for humans only while computer rules are traditionally made for both, pure comp and also comp - human matches. I thi nk it's clear that this handling is unfair. We must find rules for comp - human matches. And for the Kasparov - Junior match a solution has been found. It should rule out that the human player can lose an objectively even (=drawn) game. I read that people in CC said that this would be ridiculous because you can well lose a drawn ending as a human. I say that this is correct but this would give the comp side an unfair edge. It's a question of memory, because the chess engine does NOT calculate the moment it has found the draw but it can look into the tables. This would be the same if the human GM had all these tables moves in his memory which is impossible. But by force we must also conclude the same for the amateur players who play with a very limited memory in the opening. So we should change the rules so that also amateur players can use books. BTW most players do this already when they play against computer programs at home. If the comp sie would argue that this would be against the rules, then humans simply answer that this is not about human chess but human - comp chess and there the comps are allowed to use books. To say that this is ok, that comps are allowed but that humans are NOT allowed is again a logical fallacy. Because the CC people then would take advantages out of a sphere that is not their own. But what I do at home is my stuff and none outside can interfere. But if we meet then we must find rules for our meeting. And it would be nonsense to follow the guide that humans must then play as it is in human chess. I think this should be clear by now. Thank you for your attention. V. Let's give a perspective for the future. Since the zone where real chess is being played is so small we should change the rules still further. We should either forbid books for comps or should allow books for humans too. The latter should be the easier in practice. Because you can't control that the engine has no implementations regarding books. - But all these reflections are moot because a concrete tournament play with comps is only fantasy. The main reason is [and also this has been discussed in many articles, also by me] that in longer periods human players would adapt on the comps play and very quickly comps would be shown as what they really are, namely very stupid machines. Simply because no matter how deep they could calculate humans can adapt to certain weeaknesses and find typical weapons to exploit these weaknesses. Since all these have something to do with depth, hence the consequences will be fatal until chess will be solved in the year 5000. So by force the only play will be in such show events where the human GM gets the neccessary money for a commercial interest, namely the influencing of users who might be cheated about the real strength of the product. Since such events [like Kasparov vs Junior] allow many players to get some money as commentators or whatever, the truth about the real situation, regarding strength, will never be told by named experts. Those who know the truth and could say the truth are not taking for serious in the world of fantasy and wishful thing, not to forget in a world where money is so important. I wish us, me included, all a good Sunday of CC. Regards, Rolf Tueschen > >Kasparov cannot turn up with reference works or his own computer either. He must >rely on Kasparov. > >BTW Where would you draw the line on automatic draw: 2 man, 3 man, 4 man, 5 man >6 man, 7 man, 8 man, 9 man............. > >As someone said a while back IIRC (maybe Bruce), this is an interestng time. An >historical analogue is the question of whether man with a hammer is better than >a steam hammer. Giving the machine a rubber hammer proves nothing. > >Not a big issue for the outcome of the contest I suspect, but it has established >a precedent. And if it so unimportant then why not stick to rules of chess and, >if as Uri say above, Junior will draw anyway then why bother at all. > >Frank
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.