Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:59:41 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 19:48:59, Uri Blass wrote: > >The fide rules are for games of humans against humans. >They are not relevant for computers. Thank you for insisting on that special point. > >If you talk about fairness it is possible to say that every competition >human-computer is unfair because humans also have no chance to run faster than >cars. > >This does not mean that the car cheats when it is faster than humans. Ok. I've heard that sort of argument for many times now, also Bruce for example always puts very nicely this sort of comparison. But what would be if we all would join and talk the same old arguments over and over again. Because I want to demonstrate here in this posting for the first time, I hope I can have the copyright for it, that this argument and also similar with horses and man - is a fallacy. Excuse me, Uri, but I think it is a nice present for the weekend for you. I hope you won't refutate my theory. :) > >Fide forbid to use opening book but fide do not forbid to remember opening books >and humans remeber opening book(understanding does not change the fact that they >remember) > >If you do not allow computers to remember previous analysis that they did then >you give humans unfair advantage. > >If you allow computers to remember previous analysis then you should allow them >to use book that is based on analysis of database of a lot of games(humans also >learn from analysis of a database of games). > >saying that humans can play moves in the opening in less than 1 second based on >previous analysis when computers cannot do it is unfair. > >If we think about fairness it is more logical to limit the speed of the computer >and not to prevent it an opening book. For the sake of the argument let's not debate about speed today, please. Let's only concentrate on books. Since I saw that we often thing similarly let me try to clarify what I mean with my continual claim of unfairness with the "socalled GM books" in computer programs. Since there's only one important point, it's very easy to follow, but usually people talk what others talked before. THere are even people who copy and past what others wrote. Also journalists work like that. It's a terrible mess. Let me try. Why GM books are unfair and against FIDE rules? Is it because computers have machine-like, perfect memory? - No! Is it because of the large scale of the memory? - No! Is it because it's data from GM? - No! Is it because it's taken for free from large databases? - No! Is it because masters and experts and amateurs have a weaker memory? - No! Is it because computers don't understand chess like man does? - No! Because it becomes to be boring, I stop it here. It's unfair because the GM books contain data, computers would not understand or find even if they would analyse the problem for a long time. The material is simply human stuff and not for computers. If a computer is allowed to use these parts of the GM books, then it's cheating. Now, the direct attack against my theory comes from Dr. Hyatt. He said, GM do the same and me, Bob, too. We learn by heart certain line, do not understand them and of course play them if necessary and bingo, that's the same thing. Now, this looks rather strong, no?! But I oppose this argument. But now it becomes a little bit difficult. Is that what Dr. Hyatt is talking about fitting with the ideals of real chess, human chess? No! Because, excuse me, Bob, only stupid and very weak players play like this. Good players play what they can understand, also with longer extensions into the middle game, where they could find similarities with patterns they know of. Of course a really weak player looks into a book and plays a line as far as he can memorize it and then he starts to gamble because he doesn't know what to do next. etc. Why is that forbidden by FIDE? No, of course not! Could also GM play like that? Yes, if they were stupid enough, but they won't do this. Normally they play _their_ openings no matter if the opponent can prepare years in advance. But that doesn't matter. Important is only that you stay in the scale of your mastership=knowledge. If you play like Kasparov against DB2, you give away your advantages. Now, I ask you, Uri, and it's not a really scientifical question, it's ethical. Why man, the human chessplayers should allow 'machines' to use GM books from man with parts no computer could find. Because here is the point where Dr. Hyatt is badly wrong! The best human players are of course able to analyse the whole theory and also discover all the tricks on their own, _in principal_! But the computer can not do this! Therefore it must be forbidden. And here we need not debate that a weak amateur couldn't find the tricks either like the machines. And he could still take it from the books and play it. Yes, he can! But still I say, doesn't matter, man is man, and machine is machine. If the machine side is interested to play with man then man should set the rules. Period. Or do we like suicide and let the machines do what they want in compertition with us? No! Of course not. So, Uri! The machine can take as much it wants from the books, but only that part the mahine can analyse itself. The rest remains magic for the machine and belongs to the human race. Period! :) Rules in sports with the participation of two different species, are defined by man or the event won't happen. Period! I don't see where such rules could be unfair for machines because machine don't even understand the concept of unfairness. But man does! So, please. Do you understand now, why it was so difficult for me to explain my theory? Because it is not 'fair' for machines and man likewise! But what we have seen in the past events isn't fair either. It's scandalous! I repeat, it's an offense against the human dignity what happened to Kasparov there in 1997. And we must guarantee that this won't happen again. Not that a machine wins, but how unfair the event was designed! Are we so stupid that we take our best ethical concepts and give them away to machines and their operators? Of course not. We are not crazy! The machines have so many advantages, the are never tired etc, but we won't give our typically human discoveries away, only to weaken us. Now, finally your car metaphor. It's not the right comparison for the chess machines. The speed of the machines is not the top opponent of man. Because what is speed if you run against a wall in the end? That is not a threat against the intelligence of man. But it's a threat, if human operators or programmers come and steal the parts of chess theory only man can understand and no machine. And therefore we defend mankind if we define the FIDE rules this way that books in certain parts are forbidden for machines. Otherwise no competition in official tournaments. What do you think about my theory? Best regards, Rolf Copyright 2002 - Rolf Tueschen > > However the guys had other things to >>do than discuss justice in times when the original machine stood thousands of >>miles from the tournament chamber... It would have disturbed their >>concentration. >> >>The end of this naivety was IMO the failure of Feng Hsu to come into talkings >>with Kasparov after 1997 event. And Kasparov let his representative tell him >>that at first DB should qualify itself in the usual events of tournament chess. > > >I believe that the only missing thing here is money. >If a sponsor decides to give big prizes and let chess programs to qualify >themselves in usual events then I expect most humans to have no problem with it. > >It should not be a national championship but some open championship when every >player who is good enough is invited. > >Uri
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.