[ -- rec.games.chess.computer -- this way off topic in rgc.analysis. ]

wrote:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technol...864548,00.html

An article entertainingly riddled with errors and inaccuracies.


But now that these computers are beating the
grand-masters on the average, some of the appeal
and mystic of chess is disappearing.

*shrug* if you insist.


No doubt Fischer Random chess would level the playing field more,

Computers don't play the opening *all that* badly.


But imagine if one day, long after a computer has become world
champion

People keep saying this and it's complete nonsense. It's like seeing
the invention of the motor car and saying, `Imagine one day, long
after a motor car is the world sprinting champion.' A computer will
never be world champion because the human players simply wouldn't put
up with the idea. For the time being, its still interesting for the
top humans to play the top computers but, fairly soon, that will
become as interesting as the top sprinter racing against a Ferrari and
we'll do something else, instead.

So the simple answer to the question in your subject line is, as is
usually the case with sensationalist newspaper headlines, `No.'


Dave.

--
David Richerby Swiss Composer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pupil of Beethoven but it's made
in Switzerland!

David Richerby wrote:
[ -- rec.games.chess.computer -- this way off topic in rgc.analysis. ]

wrote:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technol...864548,00.html

An article entertainingly riddled with errors and inaccuracies.


But now that these computers are beating the
grand-masters on the average, some of the appeal
and mystic of chess is disappearing.

*shrug* if you insist.


I most certainly don't!




No doubt Fischer Random chess would level the playing field more,

Computers don't play the opening *all that* badly.


You misunderstood. Computers play
the openings extremely well. In fact, that's
where they really shine because the moves
are still limited and can be stored as an opening
database.

Fischer Random chess would tilt the favor
towards skillful humans.

Still, even Fischer Random has a finite number
of first positions, which you could still analyze and
store.



But imagine if one day, long after a computer has become world
champion

People keep saying this and it's complete nonsense. It's like seeing
the invention of the motor car and saying, `Imagine one day, long
after a motor car is the world sprinting champion.' A computer will
never be world champion because the human players simply wouldn't put
up with the idea. For the time being, its still interesting for the
top humans to play the top computers but, fairly soon, that will
become as interesting as the top sprinter racing against a Ferrari and
we'll do something else, instead.


Well, that reduces chess to pure
brute force calculation, which changes
the game a bit for me.




So the simple answer to the question in your subject line is, as is
usually the case with sensationalist newspaper headlines, `No.'


Aw, come on Davey! Just some food for
thought!



Slick

wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
No doubt Fischer Random chess would level the playing field more,

Computers don't play the opening *all that* badly.

You misunderstood. Computers play the openings extremely well. In
fact, that's where they really shine because the moves re still
limited and can be stored as an opening database.

Sorry: I was very unclear there. What I meant was that computers
don't play the opening all that badly even with the opening book
turned off. When a strong human plays a computer with an opening
book, they come out of the opening about equal, usually. When the
opening book is turned off, the human may obtain an advantage because
he knows the theory and the computer has to work everything out.
However, in Fischer Random, *neither* player knows the theory so the
computer's increased calculation will probably be an advantage.


Still, even Fischer Random has a finite number of first positions,
which you could still analyze and store.

Current opening books are based mainly on human, not computer,
analysis and this analysis has been done by thousands of grandmasters
over, say, the last hundred years. If a computer could produce this
quality of analysis relatively quickly, it would be able to play the
opening well enough that the computer-generated opening book wouldn't
be all that much of an advantage (it would maybe give you a few extra
ply).


But imagine if one day, long after a computer has become world
champion

People keep saying this and it's complete nonsense. It's like
seeing the invention of the motor car and saying, `Imagine one day,
long after a motor car is the world sprinting champion.'

Well, that reduces chess to pure brute force calculation, which
changes the game a bit for me.

It's a finite (assuming that any available draw claims are made),
game of perfect information. We've known for as long as people have
been thinking about games mathematically that such games can always be
solved by brute-force calculation, in theory at least. I grant you
that it's only recently that brute force has become a practical way to
play chess but it's been a possibility for as long as there've been
computers.

But, since we've `always' known that chess could be brute-forced and
that it's totally infeasible for an unassisted human to use that
approach, I really don't think that the strength of computers has any
impact on what happens when you and I sit down at opposite sides of a
chess board.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Enormous Cheese (TM): it's like a lump
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cheese but it's huge!

David Richerby wrote:
No doubt Fischer Random chess would level the playing field more,

Computers don't play the opening *all that* badly.

You misunderstood. Computers play the openings extremely well. In
fact, that's where they really shine because the moves re still
limited and can be stored as an opening database.

Sorry: I was very unclear there. What I meant was that computers
don't play the opening all that badly even with the opening book
turned off. When a strong human plays a computer with an opening
book, they come out of the opening about equal, usually. When the
opening book is turned off, the human may obtain an advantage because
he knows the theory and the computer has to work everything out.
However, in Fischer Random, *neither* player knows the theory so the
computer's increased calculation will probably be an advantage.

This is a topic that is very interesting to me, being an ardent
Chess_18 player. In the past, some posters have suggested that
when GMs play OTB FRC against computers, they build up a positional
advantage up to approximately the 10th move. If this is, indeed, the
case, GMs' competitiveness in _entity_ FRC chess may be more lasting
than in _entity_ Orthodox chess ("entity" OTB chess involves at least
one "player" who is not human).

Still, even Fischer Random has a finite number of first positions,
which you could still analyze and store.

Current opening books are based mainly on human, not computer,
analysis and this analysis has been done by thousands of grandmasters
over, say, the last hundred years. If a computer could produce this
quality of analysis relatively quickly, it would be able to play the
opening well enough that the computer-generated opening book wouldn't
be all that much of an advantage (it would maybe give you a few extra
ply).

In all probability, humans will be spearheading the analysis of such
openings. This means that analysts will be busy for a very long time...
In my humble opinion, such a turn of "chessic" events would be
_wonderful_.
All-human "chess" may benefit tremendously by a more extensive but
"flatter"
opening theory! 8)

But imagine if one day, long after a computer has become world
champion

People keep saying this and it's complete nonsense. It's like
seeing the invention of the motor car and saying, `Imagine one day,
long after a motor car is the world sprinting champion.'

Well, that reduces chess to pure brute force calculation, which
changes the game a bit for me.

It's a finite (assuming that any available draw claims are made),
game of perfect information. We've known for as long as people have
been thinking about games mathematically that such games can always be
solved by brute-force calculation, in theory at least. I grant you
that it's only recently that brute force has become a practical way to
play chess but it's been a possibility for as long as there've been
computers.

But, since we've `always' known that chess could be brute-forced and
that it's totally infeasible for an unassisted human to use that
approach, I really don't think that the strength of computers has any
impact on what happens when you and I sit down at opposite sides of a
chess board.

I think that the difficulties here are rather psychological.
Prior to computers, only some deity could "snicker" every time
a GM would make some _deep_ mistake in OTB play. Such mistakes
would go on unnoticed, probably forever... As computers continue
becoming ever more powerful tactical players and analysts, some
humans appear to feel that an imaginary computer "snickering" in
the background does lots of damage to the game's mystique. I would
like to approach this conundrum from a rather humoristic angle.
Namely, what if an omniscient deity would "snicker" in the back-
ground _exclusively_ every time a powerful computer makes a _deep_
mistake? Such mistakes would go on unnoticed, probably for some
time! 8)

P.S. The ultimate deity is, of course, one that has at its dis-
posal all data compilations regarding N-piece chess ending table-
bases where N = 3, 4, ... , 32.

David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
No doubt Fischer Random chess would level the playing field more,

Computers don't play the opening *all that* badly.

You misunderstood. Computers play the openings extremely well. In
fact, that's where they really shine because the moves re still
limited and can be stored as an opening database.

Sorry: I was very unclear there. What I meant was that computers
don't play the opening all that badly even with the opening book
turned off. When a strong human plays a computer with an opening
book, they come out of the opening about equal, usually. When the
opening book is turned off, the human may obtain an advantage because
he knows the theory and the computer has to work everything out.
However, in Fischer Random, *neither* player knows the theory so the
computer's increased calculation will probably be an advantage.


Understood. But I'm sure they keep the opening
book on when playing the top players.

Also, because there are a finite number of opening
positions even in Fischer Random chess, the computer
once again has the advantage, because an opening book
for each position could be created and stored before
play, so the time advantage goes to the computer
in the first 10-20 moves or so.



But imagine if one day, long after a computer has become world
champion

People keep saying this and it's complete nonsense. It's like
seeing the invention of the motor car and saying, `Imagine one day,
long after a motor car is the world sprinting champion.'

Well, that reduces chess to pure brute force calculation, which
changes the game a bit for me.

It's a finite (assuming that any available draw claims are made),
game of perfect information. We've known for as long as people have
been thinking about games mathematically that such games can always be
solved by brute-force calculation, in theory at least. I grant you
that it's only recently that brute force has become a practical way to
play chess but it's been a possibility for as long as there've been
computers.

But, since we've `always' known that chess could be brute-forced and
that it's totally infeasible for an unassisted human to use that
approach, I really don't think that the strength of computers has any
impact on what happens when you and I sit down at opposite sides of a
chess board.


But this makes GO a bit more interesting, knowing that
computers still cannot beat the advanced players.

Fischer studied chess incessantly, to the
point that his opponents often called him a computer.
And indeed, his incredible memory for games and chess
positions gave him a great advantage in the game.
I'm not saying he's isn't ultra-skillful, he is/was.
But rote memorization plays a huge role in chess.

If you and I sit down on opposite sides of the
chess board, you might as well save some time and
resign off the bat!

Just kidding! Hehe!


Slick

wrote:
Also, because there are a finite number of opening positions even in
Fischer Random chess, the computer once again has the advantage,
because an opening book for each position could be created and
stored before play, so the time advantage goes to the computer in
the first 10-20 moves or so.

As I said elsewhere, the problem with this idea is that computer
opening books are made by humans, not by computers. If you assume
that computers are unable to play the opening well, you're also
assuming that they're unable to generate good opening books.


If you and I sit down on opposite sides of the chess board, you
might as well save some time and resign off the bat!

Aw, don't you want a draw? :-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Gigantic Clock (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a clock but it's huge and
invigorating!

David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
Also, because there are a finite number of opening positions even in
Fischer Random chess, the computer once again has the advantage,
because an opening book for each position could be created and
stored before play, so the time advantage goes to the computer in
the first 10-20 moves or so.

As I said elsewhere, the problem with this idea is that computer
opening books are made by humans, not by computers. If you assume
that computers are unable to play the opening well, you're also
assuming that they're unable to generate good opening books.


I mean that the computer can number crunch
way in advance (left on overnight, etc.), and find the
best opening books, looking ahead many more moves
than they normally would in regular play. They could
then store these opening moves as a database for
each Fischer random position, and thus have
a time advantage during the openings. The human
would take much more time analyzing an opening position
for perhaps the first time.



If you and I sit down on opposite sides of the chess board, you
might as well save some time and resign off the bat!

Aw, don't you want a draw? :-)


Naw, I'll pull a Fischer and go
cut-throat!

I'LL KICK ANYONE'S ASS HERE!



S.

wrote:
As I said elsewhere, the problem with this idea is that computer
opening books are made by humans, not by computers. If you assume
that computers are unable to play the opening well, you're also
assuming that they're unable to generate good opening books.


I mean that the computer can number crunch
way in advance (left on overnight, etc.), and find the
best opening books, looking ahead many more moves
than they normally would in regular play. They could
then store these opening moves as a database for
each Fischer random position, and thus have
a time advantage during the openings. The human
would take much more time analyzing an opening position
for perhaps the first time.


Your point is well taken, provided there is no serious, organized
and competent human interest to critically review and counter such
computer-generated opening theory. Basically, it is an empirical
and open-ended question. Time will tell...

P.S. I have never come across any published reference regarding
GMs' assessments of how well powerful computers play their first
10 moves or so in Chess960! 8)

Major Cat wrote:
wrote:
As I said elsewhere, the problem with this idea is that computer
opening books are made by humans, not by computers. If you assume
that computers are unable to play the opening well, you're also
assuming that they're unable to generate good opening books.


I mean that the computer can number crunch
way in advance (left on overnight, etc.), and find the
best opening books, looking ahead many more moves
than they normally would in regular play. They could
then store these opening moves as a database for
each Fischer random position, and thus have
a time advantage during the openings. The human
would take much more time analyzing an opening position
for perhaps the first time.


Your point is well taken, provided there is no serious, organized
and competent human interest to critically review and counter such
computer-generated opening theory. Basically, it is an empirical
and open-ended question. Time will tell...

P.S. I have never come across any published reference regarding
GMs' assessments of how well powerful computers play their first
10 moves or so in Chess960! 8)


That's a very interesting question.

What's the general opinion that GMs have
of computer opening play without the
database on.

And, have computers verified or
shown erroneous the human research
that has occurs for the past several
hundred years or so, in terms of opening
moves, etc. Certainly computers will
be able to look quite a bit farther down the
game.


S

wrote:
I mean that the computer can number crunch
way in advance (left on overnight, etc.), and find the
best opening books, looking ahead many more moves
than they normally would in regular play. They could
then store these opening moves as a database for
each Fischer random position, and thus have
a time advantage during the openings. The human
would take much more time analyzing an opening position
for perhaps the first time.


Your point is well taken, provided there is no serious, organized
and competent human interest to critically review and counter such
computer-generated opening theory. Basically, it is an empirical
and open-ended question. Time will tell...

P.S. I have never come across any published reference regarding
GMs' assessments of how well powerful computers play their first
10 moves or so in Chess960! 8)

That's a very interesting question.

I have posed this question to this newsgroup on a number
of occasions. Unfortunately, I got no answers whatsoever.


What's the general opinion that GMs have
of computer opening play without the
database on.

For FIDE chess, it has been said that GMs would come out of
the opening with some positional advantage or another. Mind
you, I have no idea how credible this apparent consensus is...


And, have computers verified or
shown erroneous the human research
that has occurs for the past several
hundred years or so, in terms of opening
moves, etc. Certainly computers will
be able to look quite a bit farther down the
game.

I am no expert in FIDE chess opening theory. My understanding
is that computer analysis of openings has contributed to the
re-evaluation of quite a few opening lines due to uncovered
"deep" tactical opportunities or flaws.