Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:27:37 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 20:59:41, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. I do not believe that there are part of theory that no machoine can "understand" Machine can understand everything that the programmer explain them. I also believe that machines can find theory moves by search in big majority of the cases. I do not expect a big difference in the level of programs against humans if the program does not play theory moves that it cannot "understand" because I believe that programs can "understand" almost everything without a work of the programmer to change the evaluation function. The main problem is that program neeeds a lot of computer time to "understand". The computer time is needed for analyzing every book position for a long time including extensions of lines that were played in human-human games but if you consider the fact that there are a lot of computers then it is possible to do it if the customers give the programmer a lot of computer time and they may do it for getting an upgrade. The easy solution is to save this time by adding the program an opening book but I do not think that it is the best solution because I believe that computers may find good novelties by the lot of time that may be used to "understand". Part of the novelties may be bad novelties but I believe that the chances of humans to find a line when the computer plays a bad novelty is small if the program is not public at the time of the game. I also believe that a good program may learn to change it's evaluation function after losing a game in position that it does not understand because if you get a good position based on your evaluation and lose then you should learn that your evaluation is wrong or that you do not know to play that position and this is a good reason to evaluate it as bad for yourself. 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.