Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:15:52 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 15:38:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 27, 2003 at 15:01:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 27, 2003 at 11:36:28, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 2003 at 10:57:26, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>>When did Junior ever "remember" the table bases? >>>> >>>>When did Frenzee ever remember the Ruy Lopez? Same issue, yes? But I don't see >>>>you arguing that opening books are unfair, a la Rolf Tueschen. >>> >>>That doesn't mean I don't agree with Rolf :) >>> >>>I just think it is possible to put a bit more of the engine personality into the >>>book, for instance with learning. If you win against a higher rated player, >>>remember this position as good, if you lose to a lower rated player don't play >>>this again. >>> >>>However, you can see clearly from the discussions going on here that the book is >>>not perceived as being part of Junior, statements like: "Junior was lost out of >>>book" clearly distinguishes the engine "Junior" from the book _used_ by Junior. >>>It is as though Junior didn't lose, it was the book that lost the game on behalf >>>of Junior! This is also the natural way to think, it really is two very >>>different pieces of software. >> >>I don't agree. I have heard _many_ humans say "I got into a lost position from >>the book line I played." Did they play the line, did they remember it, or did >>they do _both_??? > > >Surely you didn't hear GM talk this way becauase it would be a contradiction in >itself because GM don't have books. They have analyses. But these are not books >yet. Of course GM remember their analyses but at least it's their stuff. > I have heard the following: 1. I did not remember the sequence of moves correctly, bungled the order, and played into a lost position. (Kasparov, round 6, 1997 vs deep blue). Implies he played _moves_ from memory. Not something he had "learned" by playing the games himself. 2. I overlooked that reply in my home-analysis I had prepared, and ended up in a lost position. This has been stated by _many_ GM players over the years, after they were "out-booked" by their opponent's pre-tournament or pre-match preparation. 3. My opponent had done his homework and hit me with a TN I had not seen before, leaving me in a terrible position. Etc... > >> >>I don't think the line is that sharp between book and engine, particularly when >>there >>is "learning" involved. >> >> >>> >>>The same applies to the egtbs, Junior wouldn't be winning, the egtbs would be. >> >>Suppose Junior had the code to _build_ the egtbs built in? What then? >> >>Suppose the EGTBs could be built on the fly, on demand, while the program was >>running. What then? > > >Suppose the engine would create a new engine on the fly - say Junior would give >birth to Fritz on the fly. Then Kasparov could really take the train back to >Moscow. BTW I announce copyright for that idea in CC! Why should that be >impossible? Could a Grandmaster NOT change his personality in the middle of a >game??? Aha! Bingo. QED. 500000$$$ please. > > Sure they can. Kramnik did. It backfired. Kasparov did. It backfired. >:) > > >Rolf Tueschen > > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>However I must agree (I guess) that "the machine" is all of the above, so >>>depends on what you want from the match. I think Kasparov wanted to play Junior >>>and not the egtbs, so for that reason I think the rules are fine. >>> >>>-S. >>> >>> >>>>:) >>>>Matt
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.