Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:13:51 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 11:17:47, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >Dear Mr. Tueschen, > >I can't give you percentages for engines without EGTBs or Opening Books. I do >think that the knowledge of endgames and openings is crucial in human chess >progression. A chess master has openings stored in his/her memory. What is >wrong with the chess program having the same information? > >The specialized knowledge of today's chess programs is what makes them more fun >to play. It is no fun playing a machine that computes an opening line for three >minutes that is on record as being a lousy line. I prefer all the added >information. > >Computers have no intelligence on their own. They simulate intelligence. You >know that Rolf. > >Tim Frohlick To prevent that we begin talking at cross purposes, let me please add, Tim, that I like playing the programs too with all that integrated. The question about strength of the engine is often confused with wrong comparisons. Here are some of them I met in earlier discussions. - Humans learn theory by heart so why books are wrong in computer programs? - The design of a computer program was always a combination of engine and book. - Also human players learn by heart without necessarily understanding each move. All these arguments are false. But it's not so at first sight. And therefore we discuss all the time. With human players we mean weak amateurs or masters? It begins with such trivial questions. Ok, a weak amateur learns by heart a few lines. The opponent, also a weak amateur makes a weaker reply and our first weak amateur cannot exploitate it, although the move is weaker than the book move. Or the line ends and the weak amateur all on his own begins to blunder. Ah, he had studied typical master games of that opening? Again the answer from above. It's a total gamble. If the variation is played like it should, our amateur might win in the end or lose or the other way round. A master, and that is difficult to understand as I have seen, does _not_ simply play learned moves or lines. Simply because it wouldn't help him. He can only play line he has analysed high up into the middle game. It's a capital error to think that masters play chess with learning by heart lines they don't analyse. Of course they must learn by heart their analyses. Now, what chapter should be discussed for our engines? I take for granted the master chapter. So here comes my crucial argument: book doctors do nothing else but preventing the machine play something that could lead into disadvantages. But the machines would play these lines if they could. They are blind and can't foresee the dangers. So far about master play by machines. I am not talking about training games or my own fun games against engines with all power books etc. Here the question was, what is the strength of the engine. Would you anwer me, that the machine is very strong, if the book doctor has done a good work? Do you think that the average master could only prevent opening traps if he learned them by heart or does he understand the content and the context of a trap? So, this is how long it takes to discuss only a few aspects of only the first argument. Let me add the next two points in short. The design was defined/ found in the old days of CC when the machines couldn't play chess without a minimum of moves. So this should not be an argument for the actual machines. The engine should have enough chess knowledge to be able to play reasonable opening moves. Then the point learning by heart without understanding. Well, that's an easy one. This is how weaker amateurs must play chess. Still it makes fun, as I know. Masters would not be masters if they played chess like this. Masters and their big brothers write the theory weaker amateurs then must learn by heart. Of course I know the simulating thing, Tim, but I cannot understand why "we", computerchess people, programmers and their programs should try to simulate being GM without respecting the normal FIDE rules of chess! Why human chessplayers can't read out of books during a game of chess too? Because, I got the answer, opening books are not books, they are integral constituent of a machine. Ahar... For me the development of computerchess took a wrong course. For me a self-learning system playing chess could be a better symbol of AI than the package which is simply not following the FIDE rules of chess. I'm talking about games between human players and comps. What were the reasons for the programmers to take the forbidden short cut? Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.04 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.