Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 13:36:12 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 13:22:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 12:43:25, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>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 > > > > >Let me clarify the argument against that statement: "there is no currently >existing in FIDE or USCF rules that prevent memorization of long seqauences >of opening moves." Never has been, never will be. I think it is easy to make an argument that permanent memory is written material. If you store a openingbook on your harddrive it is written material in my view. Its there to read for anyone with a PC to connetc to the HD. :-) And as such against the rules! So what it boils down to is what kind of material you consider the openingbook on your PC to be. > >So the argument is totally moot. As shown by the USCF allowing computers to >play in rated events for 40 years. FIDE even allowed them for a period of >time... In the "old days" the programs where so weak that we allowed them to "cheat" with a openingbook. Without it the programs would play to stupid chess. Now I think it is time for the programs to do without. Torstein
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.