Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:02:14 01/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2003 at 15:52:32, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 26, 2003 at 15:29:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 26, 2003 at 14:21:26, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On January 26, 2003 at 14:06:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>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 >>> >>>I also spoke of competition with humans. You can argue anything, but to state >>>that computers do something that the humans players don't do is clearly wrong. >>>The computers are just perfect at known theory and simple endgames, >> >>Let's keep in mind that we are just discussing here. That means if we see errors >>in the other's arguments we do NOT say that the other is a fool or has no >>knowledge. - >> >>But now let me state that this is wrong when you write that "computers are >>perfect in known theory and simple endgames". >> >>Two reasons: >> >>1) How can you assume perfection IF theory contains many errors? > >I agree that computers may play errors when they are in book but it does not >mean that it is unfair to let them to take the risk of playing the errors. > > >> >>2) How can you say that, if the engines (without book) would be unable to play >>correct openings, at least in so called difficult opening with sacs in special? >>As I said earlier, isn't it a cheat to pretend something you can't do in >>reality? Isn't it impostering? > >cheating is doing something that is not allowed by the rules. >playing moves that you do not find by search because they are part of the book >is allowed. > >The computer does not pretend to search when it looks in a database. You did misinterprete me, I said that the pretension is 'that the computers play with book to keep it simple and fast but in real they also could find the same moves on their own'. I say that this is a cheat because they can't do that in still _many_ cases. I know that you would not object here. :) Rolf Tueschen > >Uri
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.