Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:44:50 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 15:36:52, James Vance wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 12:48:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 20, 2002 at 12:13:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>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... >>> >> >> >> >>Please take this argument _elsewhere_. It is old. It is repetitive. And >>it serves absolutely no purpose. > > > >I am relatively new to this forum and computer chess. I must admit that I find >this argument fascinating and wonder if there are more members with the same >view. I do not really understand your objection to these posts because, as far >as I can see, it is about computer chess. Is this not a computer chess forum? > >I am also surprised to note the barely disguised hostility to Mr. Tueschen's >very reasonable and polite posts. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of >clique in CCC that tries to suppress a particular line of thought. Rolf was _the_ reason CCC was created. Just go back a few years and poke around in Deja News. You will see why. And then you might feel a bit differently about his obvious "troll" post here and what he is really trying to accomplish (note that it has nothing to do with "computer chess"). > >Of course, I won't fall into the trap of thinking that there is something in the >past which you don't want brought up and are using your position as a moderator >to suppress it. I realize that you are a respected academic and would never do >such a thing. > >James Vance > I also don't particularly appreciate such innuendo-type posts. Please do your homework _first_. And only then join in after you know the background. > > > > And it has nothing to do with current >>computer chess approaches or rules. >> >>Or perhaps it _does_ serve your purpose of stirring acrimonious debate. >> >>CCC is not the place for such nonsense. Tread lightly... >> >> >> >> >>>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 >> >>There is no "forbidden shortcut" being taken. Feel free to cite the rule >>that is being broken. Many will then feel free to show you how your >>interpretation of said rule is mistaken.
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.