Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:55:39 01/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2003 at 14:49:19, Frank Phillips wrote: >On January 26, 2003 at 11:59:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 26, 2003 at 10:54:43, Frank Phillips 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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 >>> >>>Suppose I have a computer that is fast enough to calculate the terminal position >>>of (let say) 5 man endgames. Is this allowed in your scheme of things. >>> >>>Suppose it hashes the positions and uses them later. Is this allowed. >>> >>>Suppose it writes them to disk and uses them later. Is this allowed. >>> >>>Suppose it keeps them stored for the next game to use later. Is this allowed. >>> >>>Suppose not, but the machine can see far enough to calculate a massive material >>>advantage. Is this allowed. >>> >>>It stores these positions for later use as in all the case above. Is this >>>allowed. >>> >>>I abstract general principle which I program to win any 5 man endgame. Is this >>>allowed. >>> >>>etc etc etc >>> >>> >>>If you wish to invent a new game of chess ie machine versus man, then fine. But >>>recognise that fact. Rules define the game - yes. >>> >>>Frank >> >>Your questions are interesting but your "conclusion" is delusional. What do you >>mean with new game? I think in sports fairness is very important. It's always >>the same oversight that is leading to unfriendly debates. The fact that CC >>people in their tradition haven't spent too much time on fairness in comp - >>humans chess. So that is why I appear to be so outlandish. As if fairness would >>be outlandish itself. You as a programmer know way better than myself what and >>how to change to make it better. Bob Hyatt gave the important problem. You can't >>make comp vs human absolutely equal and fair. So by force this is a question of >>negotiation. But Bob has in mind that nothing should be changed at all. That >>however is wishful thinking. Or the idea that real competition between comp and >>human is irreal. Fact is that we have no competition. These show events are just >>commercial shows. >> >>I once thought I had found the key for fair competition. I thought that comps >>shouldn't be allowed to store stuff that they were unable to find for themselves >>in the actual version. Bob came and "argued" that human GM would also rely on >>stuff they either did not find or also could not find. So here the debate ended >>simply because Bob doesn't know GM chess. I claim that no GM would play >>something he had either not understood or deeply enough analysed. That's simply >>the ethic. And not only this, the moment players would be known to use such >>stuff, the others would have a huge advantage. In real tournament competition >>you can't allow yourself to play like this. Of course this is difficult to >>understand for CC people. >> >>Le me end with my sadness about the fact that all the "cheating against the FIDE >>norms" resulted in the nonsense, also economical nonsense, that the chess >>programs are all too strong for amateur players, while in reality they are not, >>if we had a real competition. In CC we live in a fantasy world. :(( >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >I think you have changed the subject, or we are discussing different endpoints. > >For me this is not sport. The issue is whether a machine that plays chess with >all its advantages and disadvantages is better than the best human player with >all his advantages and disadvantages. Yes I see what you mean but you are also accepting the once established factual as the truth respectively reality. While I question the established "facts" or traditions. Now your question 'who is the best' is ok and then you should also be interested in the debate about fairness. Because how do you want to examine who's better? Just think it through:if you follow very unfair methods, the result is clear. But is that what you wanted to find out? I see no sense in such manipulated truths. In science you always exclude the possible influence of biases. Otherwise you would get biased results. Nothing you should want IMO. In other words, the error in your statement above is the assumption that it is by definition clear what the method should be and what are the typical advantages and disadvantages. ut in real this is by all means NOT clear. > >Your concept of fairness I find moot. It seems to be that the advantages that >the machine has should be reduced. (Should we also require the human to not use >his strategic sense?). Here you make the mistake of a typical bias. You see balance between outer support and inborn talents. Let the engine have all your fabulous code about chess but the books from GM chess have nothing to do with your engine. Strategic sense however has nothing to do with forbidden books, after the FIDE rules. > >When the question of who plays chess best, man or a tool made by man (to >misquote Hsu) has been answered in favour of the machine, then of course we can >hamper the machine to give the human a chance if this is defined as sport and >fairness. Yes, we could do that, but I see no sense in your description. Why should we (chess people, a wider term than just CC people) be interested in such a procedure? How do you want to find out who is better, Frank?? Do you need human players or not? Uhm, and if you need human players, could it be that you should better care about fairness? Because if you say 'moot' then you might never find out or do you think such advertising shows could prove the one or the other assumption? I do not think so. > >You say my questions are interesting but chose not to answer them. I am asking >you to define the criteria you use for deciding what is fair and unfair. I thought you wanted to say that the whole question about fairness is moot? My criterion is the same you have. We must have fairness between humans and comps as far as advantages and disadv are concerned. And the fact that for humans books are forbidden in human chess should not be a rule against comps, who are definitely allowed to use books. > If we >have a 32 man endgame table or an infinitely fast machine, then the machine >would win - on average. This would simply mean that machines (made by man) play >better chess than man. This is a good example for my theory of delusions in CC or for your sense of humour. :) Because fair would be that both sides had tables and then the match would end in a draw if you play enough games. >The issue (for me) is how close we are to that point >now. NOT close. Not even close. :) > >By new game, I mean that the rules of chess have been changed if a referee (in >this Deep Junior) can award a draw even though there is a distinct possibility >of the weaker side losing. You should pay attention to possible mistakes in your logic. The computer could also be the weaker side. It depends on the chess positions. (Whether this delusional I doubt, since the argument >leads to the conclusion in my view. Rules define the game. The rules have >changed. Therefore the game has changed.). To repeat an earlier question: >where would you draw the line on automatic draws; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... men? And >why? I hope that you will be interested in what the human GM have to say? ;) Kind regards, Rolf Tueschen > >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.