Jim Callanan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crafty18.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:36:30 -0700 (PDT), Jim Callanan
wrote:

Jim Callanan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crafty18.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fritz, Shredder, Toga, Crafty, etc.

You're a very equal opportunity loser, Jim! Welcome to the human race!
;-)

The days when most of us could hold their own against the top computer
chess programs, is long gone.

The programs do have some advantages however:

1) Their long opening book lines are absolute, and will never be
"forgotten". The programs just reads them back, like you might, if you
had an opening's reference book to look at.

2) There is no limit to the size of the computers memory.

3) Their end game play is handled entirely by rote. The CC program
doesn't have to solve anything to play them perfectly.

To me, #1 and #3 constitute cheating. I would like to see the programs
compete without referring to their "text books", during play.

I'd also like to see the memory for the CC programs, have a limit,
when they play against humans. We don't have an unlimited memory size
we can devote to chess, so why should the computers have it when they
compete with us?

It's ludicrous to suggest that computer memory (of whatever type), is
approximately equal to human memory. It is certainly not!

It is very much equal to having tons of reference books or a database
terminal, for the human, where every move could be looked up, in
advance, to see how it has worked (or not), during the last 50 years
of top GM play.

When computers play against other computers - fine, let 'em have all
the features they can get, but against humans, I say no, they're
cheating.

Adak

* Adak (04:37) schrieb:

The programs do have some advantages however:

1) Their long opening book lines are absolute, and will never be
"forgotten". The programs just reads them back, like you might, if you
had an opening's reference book to look at.

That's what big chess players do, too. They learn openings. Computers are
just better at it, get over it.

2) There is no limit to the size of the computers memory.

What do you mean by that? A certain computer, like a certain human, has
only a fixed memory size.

3) Their end game play is handled entirely by rote. The CC program
doesn't have to solve anything to play them perfectly.

Cause it's already done that. It just the same thing as #1.

To me, #1 and #3 constitute cheating.

You're just jealous.

I would like to see the programs compete without referring to their
"text books", during play.

Why not just allow the humans to use text books? And drugs, whatever.
Computers will still win.

It's ludicrous to suggest that computer memory (of whatever type), is
approximately equal to human memory. It is certainly not!

Why should it be? The algorithms are vastly different, too.

It seems you want to dumb them down to a human level. We don't need
that, we already got humans playing chess.

When computers play against other computers - fine, let 'em have all
the features they can get, but against humans, I say no, they're
cheating.

Segregation.

mfg, simon .... l

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:21:43 +0200, Simon Krahnke
wrote:

* Adak (04:37) schrieb:

The programs do have some advantages however:

1) Their long opening book lines are absolute, and will never be
"forgotten". The programs just reads them back, like you might, if you
had an opening's reference book to look at.

That's what big chess players do, too. They learn openings. Computers are
just better at it, get over it.

What I mean is, the computer will never forget or misremember the next
move in a long opening book line. He just reads them in off his hard
drive or RAM. Much more like you or I would read them in from a book -
which isn't allowed for us.

2) There is no limit to the size of the computers memory.

What do you mean by that? A certain computer, like a certain human, has
only a fixed memory size.
Actually, a motherboard has a range of memory sizes it can
accommodate, and that range has been increasing greatly, over the last
10 years. My last computer has 12 GB of RAM - far more than was
possible for most PC's, even a decade ago.


3) Their end game play is handled entirely by rote. The CC program
doesn't have to solve anything to play them perfectly.

Cause it's already done that. It just the same thing as #1.
No. A large percentage of all end game table bases, use Nalimov's
program and or data.

The chess program itself had nothing to do with creating those end
game table bases. For a human analogy, it would be like an end game
specialist took over for you, on all your end games.

I don't think you'd lose to many end games if Pal Benko took over play
for the end game portion.

There's no reason a chess program can't be taught how to play the end
game, without table bases. True, it wouldn't play them perfectly, but
it could still play them OK.


To me, #1 and #3 constitute cheating.

You're just jealous.

If you're a sportsman, you want each side to have an equal shot at
winning. Right now, the humans don't have an equal chance.

Computers will still win.

You remove the "reading by rote" aspect, and you'd be surprised how
much more vulnerable they would become.

Think about it - you remove their long opening lines (where they
always gain time and frequently a positional advantage at least), and
their perfect end game, and you'd have a real match on your hands.

It seems you want to dumb them down to a human level. We don't need
that, we already got humans playing chess.

For chess training and theoretical study - fine, let the computers use
every resource they can. But not for games against humans. That will
add a lot more interest to the games of man vs. machine.

Adak

Adak wrote:
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:21:43 +0200, Simon Krahnke
wrote:

* Adak (04:37) schrieb:

The programs do have some advantages however:

1) Their long opening book lines are absolute, and will never be
"forgotten". The programs just reads them back, like you might, if you
had an opening's reference book to look at.

That's what big chess players do, too. They learn openings. Computers are
just better at it, get over it.

What I mean is, the computer will never forget or misremember the next
move in a long opening book line. He just reads them in off his hard
drive or RAM. Much more like you or I would read them in from a book -
which isn't allowed for us.

ChessOne was always moaning about this aspect of computer chess.

The engine is still limited by the book and ends to readjust things when
it is taken out of book in a way that sometimes favours the human so it
is a double edged sword. The books aren't perfect either.

2) There is no limit to the size of the computers memory.
What do you mean by that? A certain computer, like a certain human, has
only a fixed memory size.

Actually, a motherboard has a range of memory sizes it can
accommodate, and that range has been increasing greatly, over the last
10 years. My last computer has 12 GB of RAM - far more than was
possible for most PC's, even a decade ago.

That is still a fixed size. and it is doubtful that hashtables will
yield much better results in massively oversized memory spaces.

3) Their end game play is handled entirely by rote. The CC program
doesn't have to solve anything to play them perfectly.

Cause it's already done that. It just the same thing as #1.

No. A large percentage of all end game table bases, use Nalimov's
program and or data.

But that is still the result of a computer doing what it does best -
brute force evaluation of successor states. There are also tools like
Freezer that can extend perfect tablebases back to otherwise insoluble
problems with exact results by formal proof methods.

The chess program itself had nothing to do with creating those end
game table bases. For a human analogy, it would be like an end game
specialist took over for you, on all your end games.

You can disable the endgame tables. And in some tournaments they are
left disabled deliberately. The time spent probing tables and the
perfect play means that engines can often do better at least in engine
engine matches by playing their calculated move.

I don't think you'd lose to many end games if Pal Benko took over play
for the end game portion.

There's no reason a chess program can't be taught how to play the end
game, without table bases. True, it wouldn't play them perfectly, but
it could still play them OK.

The modern engines do a pretty good job already.

To me, #1 and #3 constitute cheating.
You're just jealous.

If you're a sportsman, you want each side to have an equal shot at
winning. Right now, the humans don't have an equal chance.

Thats because computers have become smarter at playing chess.

Computers will still win.

You remove the "reading by rote" aspect, and you'd be surprised how
much more vulnerable they would become.

You can disable the opening book and see how much difference it makes.
Most of the better engines come up with something close to a line in the
mainstream opening theory and then take you down a line of their choosing.

Think about it - you remove their long opening lines (where they
always gain time and frequently a positional advantage at least), and
their perfect end game, and you'd have a real match on your hands.

Try it and see - the options are there to be ticked.

It seems you want to dumb them down to a human level. We don't need
that, we already got humans playing chess.

For chess training and theoretical study - fine, let the computers use
every resource they can. But not for games against humans. That will
add a lot more interest to the games of man vs. machine.

You can set the engine to play to a nominal standard below its actual
strength. How well it simulates this is open to debate. Several do 5 GM
level moves and then a pazter move which might get the win lose draw
stats right but isn't anything like human style play.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In rec.games.chess.computer Adak wrote:

When computers play against other computers - fine, let 'em have all
the features they can get, but against humans, I say no, they're
cheating.


If the computer can beat you, than it can beat you. If it does so
consistantly, then it is better than you. It is not it's fault that you don't
have memory as fast as its own and the fact that its memory is perfect and
yours is not is not the computers fault either. That is why computers don't
play in human tournaments ... although there are great grandmaster tournaments
of human versus machine ... and now even the greatest of grandmasters are
losing.

It's not cheating, because it is a different entity than a human being. If
you say, it should not opening book, it should be implied that you also must
"forget" your opening book. The real problem is that humans are inferior in
this area than computers. Computers have perfect memory and extremely fast
recollection; humans do not.

If you can't deal with that then don't play a chess engine.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

In rec.games.chess.computer Adak wrote:
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:21:43 +0200, Simon Krahnke
wrote:

* Adak (04:37) schrieb:

The programs do have some advantages however:

1) Their long opening book lines are absolute, and will never be
"forgotten". The programs just reads them back, like you might, if you
had an opening's reference book to look at.

That's what big chess players do, too. They learn openings. Computers are
just better at it, get over it.

What I mean is, the computer will never forget or misremember the next
move in a long opening book line. He just reads them in off his hard
drive or RAM. Much more like you or I would read them in from a book -
which isn't allowed for us.

You are allowed to memorize as many opening lines as you like, it is your
inability to do this that is giving you trouble. Computers can do this
perfectly and humans can't. On the other hand, you have the ability of
abstract thought and a computer program does not; so you have potential to
actually beat a computer program because it was not designed to deal with what
you have done. This is getting more an more rare as grandmasters team up with
software engineers and build in the proper algorithms to prevent this.


2) There is no limit to the size of the computers memory.

What do you mean by that? A certain computer, like a certain human, has
only a fixed memory size.
Actually, a motherboard has a range of memory sizes it can
accommodate, and that range has been increasing greatly, over the last
10 years. My last computer has 12 GB of RAM - far more than was
possible for most PC's, even a decade ago.


3) Their end game play is handled entirely by rote. The CC program
doesn't have to solve anything to play them perfectly.

Cause it's already done that. It just the same thing as #1.
No. A large percentage of all end game table bases, use Nalimov's
program and or data.

The chess program itself had nothing to do with creating those end
game table bases. For a human analogy, it would be like an end game
specialist took over for you, on all your end games. A computer could one
time, create the endgame tablebases [the code to do this already exists] and
from then on it can be considered that the program memorized. Do you really
want to waste the time for a computer to "play out and memorize" end games
when you first load it? If so, then you will have to give the game time to
study [after all, you have probably had years to study] and it can create and
learn the endgame on it's own ... but we all know that is a complete waste of
time, because it will always create a 100% accurate result of its study. That
is why they tend to be included.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

On 8 Sep 2009 14:55:14 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

The chess program itself had nothing to do with creating those end
game table bases. For a human analogy, it would be like an end game
specialist took over for you, on all your end games.

A computer could one
time, create the endgame tablebases [the code to do this already exists] and
from then on it can be considered that the program memorized. Do you really
want to waste the time for a computer to "play out and memorize" end games
when you first load it? If so, then you will have to give the game time to
study [after all, you have probably had years to study] and it can create and
learn the endgame on it's own ... but we all know that is a complete waste of
time, because it will always create a 100% accurate result of its study. That
is why they tend to be included.

No, no!

The computer doesn't get to re-create the end game table bases -
that's the whole point!

The CC program should be smart enough to find the proper end game with
it's own search - which frequently goes 15 - 30 ply deep in the end
game.

Anything beyond that depth, it should solve the end game with general
"rules of thumb" (aka algorithms), which it should have in it's code.

Same with the opening. CC programs are perfectly able to play
reasonable openings, without the "cheat" of being able to read a
"book" opening line, from it's memory, by rote.

Chess is not played with piles of books or other reference material,
for each player to read - and that goes for computers, as well.

They are, or should be, perfectly capable of playing a good game,
without this cheating, during games.

Adak

In rec.games.chess.computer Adak wrote:
On 8 Sep 2009 14:55:14 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

The chess program itself had nothing to do with creating those end
game table bases. For a human analogy, it would be like an end game
specialist took over for you, on all your end games.

A computer could one
time, create the endgame tablebases [the code to do this already exists] and
from then on it can be considered that the program memorized. Do you really
want to waste the time for a computer to "play out and memorize" end games
when you first load it? If so, then you will have to give the game time to
study [after all, you have probably had years to study] and it can create and
learn the endgame on it's own ... but we all know that is a complete waste of
time, because it will always create a 100% accurate result of its study. That
is why they tend to be included.

No, no!

The computer doesn't get to re-create the end game table bases -
that's the whole point!

It is no different that you memorizing them all. It is simply the fact that
you don't have that ability that you are really complaining about. Consider
the fact that the computer is beating you and that means it is better. If you
play a computer, I see no reason you can't use end game databases or an
openning book while you are playing ... that is not illegal when playing
computers. It will still beat you because it is faster at that than you.

The point is that you have a strength the computer doesn't and that is
abstract though and the computer has several advantages that you do not have;
100% perfect recall and a large base of learning (i.e. opening book and
tablebases).

It is not as if Fritz can show up at a local weekend tournament and try to
compete with all the humans.

Sorry that I snipped all your "the computer should *" comments, but clearly
you don't have anybody agreeing with you on this. Computers do not play in
human against human tournaments. You can't make a human a computer and you
can't make a computer a human. The fact is that a computer program should use
all available means to attempt to beat its opponent. It isn't correct to say,
since I can't look at the opening book, either should the computer, because
the facts are simple; the computer does not get to learn openings over years
of playing like a human does. And to a human's advantage, you can not [yet]
give the computer the ability to think abstractly. So, comparing the way
computer play to the way a human plays is largely irrelavent; what is relavent
is that the computer can or can not win the game.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

On 8 Sep 2009 19:27:38 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

It is no different that you memorizing them all. It is simply the fact that
you don't have that ability that you are really complaining about.

You say it's no different - and then you turn right around and say how
different it is.

Thomas, you have great brakes - you can turn on a dime and give nine
cents of change, right back. lol

Consider
the fact that the computer is beating you and that means it is better. If you
play a computer, I see no reason you can't use end game databases or an
openning book while you are playing ... that is not illegal when playing
computers. It will still beat you because it is faster at that than you.

No, it will beat me because I haven't played chess in so long, I can
barely recall how to set up the board. oy!

It is not as if Fritz can show up at a local weekend tournament and try to
compete with all the humans.

I believe I caught Chessmaster trying to get on the trolley, just last
week - headed for the tournament, downtown!

Sorry that I snipped all your "the computer should *" comments, but clearly
you don't have anybody agreeing with you on this. Computers do not play in
human against human tournaments. You can't make a human a computer and you
can't make a computer a human. The fact is that a computer program should use
all available means to attempt to beat its opponent.
I should be able to use a hammer to beat the computer at chess?

It isn't correct to say,
since I can't look at the opening book, either should the computer, because
the facts are simple; the computer does not get to learn openings over years
of playing like a human does. And to a human's advantage, you can not [yet]
give the computer the ability to think abstractly. So, comparing the way
computer play to the way a human plays is largely irrelavent; what is relavent
is that the computer can or can not win the game.

Clearly, I have the majority of chess players agreeing with me. That's
exactly why computers are banned from competing with humans in most
tournaments -

the computers cheat.

More precisely, the computers play a variant chess game. The rules for
computer-chess allow referring to reference material, while the game
is in progress.

Legal human chess, this is not!

I would like to see the situation changed so computer chess followed
the same rules as human chess, and then I'd like to see the computers
allowed to compete with humans, in tournaments. That would be fun to
watch and to follow.

I'd also like to see any human vs. computer matches, done with these
same rules.

Save the "I can refer to any reference material I want during play",
type of computer chess, for training or coaching.

Adak