Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:31:54 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2002 at 13:24:19, José Carlos wrote:
>On May 21, 2002 at 19:15:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>"I would bet a new Porsche vs a Mattel Hot Wheel toy..."
>>
>>(From a reliable source,
>>wasn't it Janis Joplin?
>>Read below for the solution.)
>>
>> =============
>>
>>I will always respect you for your willingness to discuss, because only this way
>>we can clarify things right now, and it shows that things are not what you'd
>>thought in the last three decades. Today this will be proven, just below in this
>>posting. But again due to your openess this was possible.
>>
>>
>>On May 21, 2002 at 11:40:07, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>>Nothing of pre-recorded stuff? Mhmm. Or do you use a different wording?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. It is "memory". Just as _I_ recall specific sequences of moves
>>>(or entire games for that matter). I recall sequences of moves from _my_
>>>memory. The computer recalls sequences of moves from _its_ memory.
>>>
>>>Seems simple enough to me...
>>
>>Too simple and false to me.
>>
>>You don't deny pre-recorded stuff. You say that it is MEMORY. Ok.
>>Now the little and final question for this chapter:
>>
>>Whose memory? Read what you wrote yourself! You recall YOUR memory. And the
>>computer what does he recall? HIS memory? HIS material? Nah.
>>It's the memory of GM chess of the last 100 years. Ah, you might say, and the
>>haman GM, what hey are doing? The same! I say No! The human GM has understood
>>what he has in memory, but your comp has in memory most of all stuff he cannot
>>understand, because he would be terribly lost if the memory would be taken away.
>
>
>
>
> You seem quite confused with computer science terms. Every piece of sotfware
>lies in memory. There's RAM, there's cache, there's processor registers, there's
>hard disks, floppy disks, tapes, ... All of that is virtually the same, except
>for speed and capacity.
Thanks for your support. Of course I didn't even talk of that 'memory'. We
discussed something different. What did a GM store in his memory? Is it the
same, the computer has in its memory? We are talking about chess, not computer
science, thank you.
> An "opening book" is just a piece of software, a series of information bits
>stored in a memory. No matter if in RAM, chache or floppy it's the same. Just
>software.
Thank you for the clarification.
> Programs don't "understand" anything. Period.
Then let me explain, what understanding 'means'. If the program plays a move
which is good then the program has "understood", if the move loses program had
no understanding. Now let's compare memory of the human player and your computer
memory filled with opening books. And let's not forget what you said: progs
don't understand. So, basically the computer has the good solutions out of human
chess WITHOUT understanding them. Now, what you are telling me is this, because
all what a computer is using does come from the human programmer, it's no
problem if the book doctor adds the opening book. I am saying this: the computer
is very stupid in chess, so by adding the solutions from human chess, you can
hide the basic stupideness. Now, some people come and protest. But, they say,
the human GM does it the same way, he simply reads some lines, not necessarily
"understanding" them and more so not able to find them on his own.
The logic is the following. First make the GM as stupid as the machine and then
you can reply, if the question about "understanding" is asked, in both worlds
it's fairly the same... Ok, for someone who doesn't know too much about chess,
that is ok. But from the angle of a GM this is nonsense. Also from the human
sciences. GM do not store move after move, but they store as I tried to explain
Ganzheiten. Because all the lines have a direct connection with the patterns in
chess. To store that the GM must think about these connections. And a GM doesn't
either store just moves with percentages about the history of the played games.
These are fairy tales. They have no value for the GM because without connections
to the world of the patterns percentages have no meaning. Then with exoerience
it can well be that a GM stores a collection of percentages, but on the bases of
his understanding. Again, without understanding, the looking for information,
that you personally have no understanding for, but which are the correct
solutions is - cheating. If the machine could find the same solution it would be
kosher. So, it's true that there must be some memory, otherwise no computer.
It's also true that without any chess input at all no chess output at all. At
least not meaningful. This is all trivial. But to implement moves that pretend
that the computer "could" play them, is cheating. Some moves no computer will
ever find on its own. And then the last argument. Some say that a GM does also
play moves he could never find on his own. But this is nonsense. That is a
typical assumption from a frogs view of way below Elo 1900. That are amateurs
who perhaps might think that chess is just a question of memory. If you have any
questions, please ask them.
>A program is a black box with
>two ends. You enter data in one end and get the result in the other end. What
>the program does inside the box is not relevant, unless for the programmer.
>Imagine this piece of pseudocode:
> if (move=="e4")
> reply("e5")
> else if (move=="d4")
> reply("Nf6")
> else if...
>
> Whether the program does its calculation this way, or with an AlphaBeta search
>is irrelevant for the user. Same if these "if's" are in RAM or in hard disk.
>Actually, the whole program is usually in hard disk or CD before it gets loaded
>to RAM for performance reasons.
Yes, feel free to proceed as you like it. The point is what the FIDE rules say.
It's not me telling this.
>
>
>
>
>>But the memory of a GM, now this is crucial and you should note that, wonders me
>>that GM Roman did never tell you, does not primarily contain opening moves. The
>>GM is thinking in 'Ganzheiten', patterns. That's why I am saying that against a
>>GM your computer memory book out of 100 years of chess is not the decisive tool
>>to take advantages over the GM but it's a toll for defense to not being busted
>>too early in the game. Against players like us the tools become decisive and
>>winning because we do not master opening theory in total. Of course we have our
>>variations too up into the twenty moves but it's by far not total knowledge. Why
>>for a GM it's different with the Ganzheiten? Because, and that is just chess,
>>the single opening moves or full lines do not matter much without the connection
>>to the middle-game and even endgame. So a GM has, depending of the opening
>>choice, a direct view on Ganzheiten for more than opening lines of 20 or 30
>>moves. THAT is memory! But "your" memory argument of computerchess is simply a
>>false understanding and a consequence of the different situation in the
>>beginnings in the '60s. Computerchess then needed a couple of foreign moves in
>>memory of the machine, because otherwise it hadn't played correct chess at all.
>>But if you want to claim that your computer's memory would exactly mean the same
>>than the memory of the chessplayers, then you have simply not understood the
>>chess memory of human chessplayers. It's funny, because you are a chessplayer.
>>And you did never observe that you didn't simply play move after move by heart/
>>by memory without having the whole idea/picture/Ganzheit of the variation before
>>your inner eyes?
>
>
>
>
> When you see a program play a "book move", how do you know whether the
>programmer inserted 5000 lines of code in eval to handle that position or not?
>You simply don't know. And you don't need to know it. How the program works is
>not your bussiness as a user.
*g*
I agree. But if you wanna play in human tournaments FIDE and its players want to
know. Please try to see the overall problem. Not _me_. I'm just the reporter,
you know.
>
>
>
>
>>I repeat. A computer is only functioning you say, when he has memory. Either for
>>some code with specific computer related stuff or chess content related. Both is
>>memory for you which you equate with the memory of a chessplayer.
>>
>>I repeat the cheat.
>>
>>A human chessplayer uses his memory where he has moves of course but most of all
>>Ganzheiten of ideas, concepts etc.
>>
>>A computer needs memory to function, but what you do so that he can play chess
>>is you take the best theory of 100 y. of GM chess, enter these foreign moves
>>into the memory of the machine and you are thinking that this is only fair
>>compared to the human chessplayer. But it's not.
>
>
>
>
> If the "book moves" are "foreign moves", then also evaluation is foreign
>evaluation (the programmer implements some rules humans have discovered over the
>years), and the search rules are foreign (invented by humans, the computer
>doesn't understand them), etc. You're logic is completely flawed.
And you, excuse me, have the FIDE rules let besides.
>
>
>
>
>
>>As others like Martin and Torstein have said, we could try to let the machine
>>analyze the openings itself. Fine by me!
>
>
>
>
> Why? The "knowledge" the program would use for such analisys is "human
>knowledge", so same cheating then...
I hope that you will know what cheating is after this posting.
>
>
>
>
>
>>But Martin will understand in near
>>future that chess is not like checkers. And for all, he has confirmed me that he
>>won't change the choices of the machine. Then Aloha I would say, just smiling.
>>The machines of the next 10 years and more won't find the best opening concepts
>>on their own. Man had to intervene. But this is exactly what would destroy your
>>equating concept of the two different "memories".
>>>
>>>I think the _intent_ of the rules was quite clear. The "player" has to rely
>>>on his mind and memory, exclusively, when playing a game. The computer does
>>>_exactly_ that...
>>
>>Yes, yes, _his_ mind and _his_ memory and _his_ work, but not the data taken
>>from human masters. Period.
>
>
>
>
> All the chess knowledge in chess programs is take from human masters. Period.
>
see above
>
>
>
>>>>It's funny, yes, GM with eidetics have a database in their head.
>>>>But all the rest of us is arguing against your forbidden use of 'books'.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but _I_ play chess also. and _I_ remember specific sequences of
>>>opening moves, from studying them in books like MCO, etc. I don't know how
>>>_you_ play chess, and I don't care. But I do know how _people_ play chess,
>>>and they _definitely_ rely on memory as one component of their skill...
>>
>>Uhmmm. For human chessplayers you are right. They can 'read' in books. A
>>computer can 'read' too? No? You must take the whole theory of human players and
>>putting it into the "memory". What does it mean human 'reading'? Thinking,
>>understanding? Yes. But the machine just is instructed to copy the book lines
>>the way they were imported into memory by YOU, the programmers or special book
>>doctors.
>>
>>All I'm saying is let the machine find its own openings
>
>
>
>
> No. The machine doesn't find its own anything. It finds what the programmer
>tells it to search.
Yes, then let the programmers tell the machines the right things instead of
cheating with the _solutions_ from human chess. Hint: let the maxhines simulate
the human chessplayers or let the machines calculate, but reading in books with
the correct solutions during game is a no no.
Rolf Tueschen
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.