Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 05:36:04 10/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2004 at 06:32:40, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On October 13, 2004 at 06:06:52, emerson tan wrote: > >>Since computers can play much better than humans, > >[insert proof here] > > >> the next team humans versus >>team computers, computers should not use opening books. And humans too. But since we cannot erase from their memory the opening lines that they have read and studied AND NOT INVENTED BY THEIR OWN, we just have to allow computers use opening books too. > >Many engines are designed in a way that they _depend_ on an opening book. That >is, they don't have the necessary eval-terms to play a very good opening on >their own. (similarly, engines which are programmed with EGTB in mind, don't >have knowledge to play KPK endgames etc) > >One can argue whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. But that's the current >situation. It's a good thing. All people(GM's especially) have gained the knowledge they have at opening from studying games and books that come from their GM predecessors, from millions of games that they've played. The same exists for computers! We have a PGN database and generate an opening book. The fact that computers have an incredibly better ability to store things should not make us feel jealous and say that using opening book is unfair. If we think that, then we should not even allow them to search beyond 1 node per second! > > >>Fischer mentioned before that he plays against computers with opening book >>disabled cause the opening book is made by man. > >Maybe next time he should play against nothing, since the engine is also made by >man. That's right! We should not use PC's also since they also come from humans. > > >>Its also interesting to see how the computer navigate the opening using purely >>engine. It is also interesting to see humans play against the computers which >>does not play book and we will have an unfamiliar position in less than 10 >>moves. > >While that may me interesting to us computer-chess freaks, it won't happen. All >these human-computer events are not scientific experiments but public >exhibitions. (nothing wrong with that) > > >>Get rid of the tablebases also. The ability to tire on human part and the >>ability to blunder is already a big disadvantage to humans. Oh yeah. We should also get rid of everything unhuman that computers have. Then humans would be satisfied i think...... But really, why do we have to do this? To prevent the inevitable? Computers will prevail at Chess sooner or later. By having rules that don't allow the one or the other it's silly. And actually to make you feel better, it's not a fight between computers-humans but just humans-humans. It's only the programmers and PC constructors that win all these GM's at Chess. >I guess EGTBs are overrated... besides... why should you penalize the engine >because of a weakness of humans? It's not the engines fault that humans blunder >at times. > >Sargon
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.