Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 10:33:27 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 12:37:57, Albert Silver wrote: >>I don't understand your reason for not wanting to call it a competition. >>It is a competition between the brute force method of computers and the chess >>understanding of humans. > >The reason I don't qualify it as a competition is that IMHO a competition is >always two-sided: *both* sides compete. Let me take you by steps along my view >of the matter. Ok, I guess I did understand you point, but remember there are people behind the programs and the computer. Deep Blue - Kasparov, it was really IBM - Kasparov. It was very much a competition IMO. Same with Chessbase-Smirin, Chessbase used everything they had, the commercial programmers want to program that world champion! No doubt they will return with stronger and better programs in the future. >Step 1 - I'm going to still REreiterate the above argument. If you race against >a motorcycle to see if you can reach the 5000-meter mark before it, you may be >competing but it is not. You are using legs and lungs and it is using wheels and >cylinders, but that still isn't enough to qualify it as a competition. You're >not going to seriously tell me the motorcycle is competing against you to see >who crosses 5000 meters first are you? Of course not. It isn't competing against >you as it is completely oblivious of you. > >Step 2 - Now take a computer. Feed it the formula to calculate PI. Let's assume >you do not know more about PI other than the formula. Run the program and start >calculating yourself, either by head or/and with paper. After 2 hours stop the >program and compare the results. Was the program *competing* against you? No, >competition had nothing to do with it. It just started when you started it, and >stopped when you stopped it. Competition had nothing to do with it. > >Step 3 - Take that same computer. Feed it a chess program. You can even disable >the books if it makes you happy as it will change nothing. Run the program. You >make a move, it calculates and after a minute (controlled by its time management >algorithms) its chess algorithms lead it to the move with the highest numerical >evaluation which it displays on the screen. You sweat and groan (keeping it nice >and human) and finally find a move that you believe is good. You play it. It >accepts the data, calculates the position's numerical evaluation, and begins >calculating for the move that again produces the highest numerical value, >limited by the time management algorithms. And so forth. Is the program >COMPETING against you? No, it is merely running a series of calculations that >were designed to correspond to chess moves. It could be brute force, and it >could be the most advanced strategical heuristics on the planet, and it would >still not be competing. > >> >If it's any relief, I have the EXACT same complaints in competition as it is. So >does Fischer in fact. It is annoying to have to play against reams of theory all >plotted out and which in many cases extends well into the endgame. I can easily >lose if my opponent, far less talented, simply knows the theory better than me. >Sure, I *understand* the opening better, but what difference does it make? Now, >I'll *understand* all the better why I'm a dead duck. One truism about chess is >to NEVER presume or hope your opponent will be either ignorant of theory or >blind to a possibility you left available on the board. Computers are only more >so. My opponent mentioned above also had no merit in the acquistion of the >theory he spouts other than to have taken the time to commit it to memory. I >don't qualify this *effort* as reason to justify removing the books from a >program. R. Fischer believes all moves should be found at the board. But chess has many sides to it, you need a good memory to be good a chess, I don't see a way around that. Chess is 95% pattern recognition, even tactics is mainly pattern recognition. -S.
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.