Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:14:41 05/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2002 at 03:02:12, José Carlos wrote: >On May 22, 2002 at 20:01:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Do you want to participate against humans in human tournaments? If no, where is >>the problem that you seem to think that the concept of playing against the FIDE >>rules should not be discussed here in freedom but more be discussed with the >>FIDE itself? I still think that it could be worth to search for a consense what >>could be changed in programs to be more in accordance with the FIDE rules. Thank >>you for your interesting comments so far. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > > I've participated in many tournaments, most of them with only humans, and only >a few with computers allowed. > I don't think the FIDE rules shouldn't be discussed here. May I ask you if you could read what I wrote about "playing against the FIDE rules"? Please. That should be discussed. Only you had invited me to go and discuss the FIDE rules with FIDE. Why should I do that? The players do not want to participate against computers who play against the FIDE rules so that the FIDE excluded computers. My proposition was to find a consense about a possible change in the practice of computerchess. A computer should not be allowed (in FIDE tournaments at least) to use opening books or endgame tables who enable him to play way above his own strength. Now some here opposed such ideas with the defense that all kind of code for evaluation and all must be forbidden in a computer which is ridiculous of course. But some answer, no, what the computer can achieve with calculating and the general chess content is his own result comparable to the human players' but it's different when a machine simply "reads" the pre-recorded content of the human GM book and plays it without a single own calculation. Now, the overall mistake or fallacy or blind spot in all the negative answers to my proposition is the popular logic in CC is the - ahem - reduction of the thought process in little circles or single levels without considering the context. For me from the outside it's strange to meet this thought process. It was presented so many times from many different people from different countries that it could help if we discussed it. I am unable to see the rational in the following: if someone says, it's against the FIDE rules, which say "no use of pre-recorded stuff", meaning opening books, and you in CC do that exactly, you let the machine read in books from human history. You in CC reply this way: ° books or anything in the code, if you forbid the books you must forbid all Who has demanded that at all? Again, I am unable to understand such a logic. Are you worried about possible injustice among the different software codes in the machine? (Or is it more some sort of hand waving because you know exactly what that means in relation to questions about strength?) ° human chessplayers do it all in the same manner - they play their pre-recorded stuff, and yes, they do read it in their memory in their head, and that is just the same, comparably, what the machine does, so no problem, period. But this is totally false. It's not even necessary to use the "understanding" because it caused new confusion. It's simply a misunderstanding. GM players do _not_ store anything without thinking and analysing, it's combined and connected with the patterns so that it becomes a real weapon for the chess fights. But the computer does something different. He gets to a move, which is not his, which he wouldn't find through his own calculations included the evaluation stuff and all, and most important, which is a move the machine would with certainty replace by its own move - who would then lead to a catastrophe in the whole game, probably a loss. This and only this is the cheating aspect so embarrassing for human chessplayers. It is simply not fair. It's a kind of fraud. You should also please bear in mind the financial aspects and consequences for the masters. Finally: the aspect that GM all the time respect the computers "as they are actually". Because of the eidetics a real GM does not fear the computer. And for his accepting the unfair time-relevant and physical fitness-relevant aspects he gets paid. So that is how some masters see it. But if we enter FIDE tournaments the whole question is different. And the participation of such a memory genius could cause different influences on the human beings. I am absolutely sure, that if the computer would be really almost strong as Kasparov (without the books and tables tricks) human masters would be very interested in letting such a genius participate. But this (the fair genius) will not happen in the next 50 years. IMO. Rolf Tueschen Rather, I think they >should, at least in regard to computers playing in FIDE tournaments. > What I said was that if you are only a reporter of FIDE rules (as you said), >then discussing with you is worthless. Only if you are discussing your own >ideas, then it is worth discussing with you. Otherwise, let's invite FIDE to >come here and discuss their ideas. > Thank you for your comments also. > > José C.
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.