Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:06:05 01/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2003 at 13:49:14, Mark Young wrote: >On January 26, 2003 at 10:29:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 > >It is not unfair for the computer to use its own programmed memory in the >opening and endgame. This is just the nature of the beast when you play a >computer. Many humans who happen to be strong GM's also use book info and commit >it to memory. I don't know of any good player that has not used opening >information based on other players opening works to help his own game. > >Chess is far from played out. If the human wishes he can go into perfectly >playable lines far from move 10 to make the program start thinking in the >opening phase of the game. Please do not leave out the connectivity of my statements. Taken isolated nothing is unfair in CC, but I spoke of competition with human players. 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 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.