Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 09:43:25 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 12:13:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Let me clarify in a sentence the Rolf original statement: "It's clear cheating to play with books against humans". w.b.r. Otello
This page took 0.01 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.