Let us imagine, for a moment, that we are actually talking about fast
cars.


diegoami wrote:
Matches "Man vs Machine" are going to become boring, boring, boring...
The Machine is always going to win.

Races `man vs sportscar' are going to become boring, boring, boring.
The sportscar is always going to win.


It is for chess's sake. You should give software houses some
reasons to try and keep improving their engines. Otherwise Man vs
Machine matches, most interesting IMHO, are just going to die. Are
you really interested in Machine vs Machine matches ? I don't really
care that much whether Rybka is stronger than Fritz. I don't think
either computers or software houses are going to sulk if we give men
some (maybe unfair) advantage, now that computer engines ratings may
be well over 3000.

It is for racing's sake. You should give car companies some reasons
to try and keep improving their sportscars. Otherwise, man vs
sportscar races, most interesting IMHO, are just going to die. Are
you really interested in sportscar vs sportscar races? I don't really
care whether Ferraris are faster than Porsches. I don't think car
companies are going to sulk if we give men some (maybe unfair)
advantage, now that sports cars can do well over 200mph.


Not a perfect analogy, of course: there is much more scope for
operator skill in motor racing than there is in computer chess. But
the point stands that, within a couple of decades of the invention of
the motorcar, there was absolutely no point having races between
people and cars. Now, a couple of decades after computers became
powerful enough to consider playing chess, there's not a lot of point
having chess matches between people and computers. So what? Life
moves on.

I just don't see the interest in a match between a computer and a
person if the computer has been crippled to ensure that the person
wins. Why bother playing the match at all? How do matches against
people convince the software houses to improve their products if the
match only takes place against a crippled version of the software?
That's like saying that car makers will be encouraged to make faster
cars by having races against top sprinters where the car isn't allowed
to do more than 22mph (roughly 100m in 10s). All cars can already do
22mph so the latest sportscar is equivalent in this race to a fifty
year old rust bucket. It gives no incentive for improvement.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Beefy Bulb (TM): it's like a light
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ bulb that's made from a cow!

Not a perfect analogy, of course: there is much more scope for
operator skill in motor racing than there is in computer chess. But
the point stands that, within a couple of decades of the invention of
the motorcar, there was absolutely no point having races between
people and cars.

As far as I know, there has never been races between people and cars.
Not even people and horses. Seems a wrong analogy to me.


I just don't see the interest in a match between a computer and a
person if the computer has been crippled to ensure that the person
wins. Why bother playing the match at all? How do matches against
people convince the software houses to improve their products if the
match only takes place against a crippled version of the software?


You obviously didn't read my post. I never talked about crippling
software. I was talking about making the Men team stronger.

On Dec 7, 11:48 am, "diegoami" wrote:
Not a perfect analogy, of course: there is much more scope for
operator skill in motor racing than there is in computer chess. But
the point stands that, within a couple of decades of the invention of
the motorcar, there was absolutely no point having races between
people and cars.

As far as I know, there has never been races between people and cars.
Not even people and horses. Seems a wrong analogy to me.


Not true. I have seen films from the 1930s of Olympic star Jess
Owens racing against a horse (Owens got a considerable head start).

I just don't see the interest in a match between a computer and a
person if the computer has been crippled to ensure that the person
wins. Why bother playing the match at all? How do matches against
people convince the software houses to improve their products if the
match only takes place against a crippled version of the software?
You obviously didn't read my post. I never talked about crippling
software. I was talking about making the Men team stronger.

On 7 Dec 2006 08:48:20 -0800, "diegoami"
wrote:

As far as I know, there has never been races between people and cars.
Not even people and horses. Seems a wrong analogy to me.

Don't let Nero hear you say that. :-)

diegoami wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I just don't see the interest in a match between a computer and a
person if the computer has been crippled to ensure that the person
wins.

You obviously didn't read my post. I never talked about crippling
software. I was talking about making the Men team stronger.

Oops. Sorry.

Well, the comment still stands to all the machine-cripplers out there.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Laptop T-Shirt (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fashion statement that you can put on
your lap!

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
wrote:
But why should that be the
case? Is the way a computer moves pieces around more analgous to a
human's doing it internally or externally?

internally.

The way a computer "plays out" positional possibilties is exactly
analogous to a human setting up extra chess boards and playing out
positional possibilities on each one. The computer of course can do
this much faster than a human. The computer's actions are only
analogous to a human playing out possibilities in his mind, to the
exact same extent that a human playing out possibilities only in his
mind is analogous to a human playing out possibilities on extra chess
boards; that is to say, not particularly analogous at all, which is why
the latter is cheating in a typical tournament, while the former is
not.


Is the way a computer has
an opening book and ending book more analagous to a human's thinking
about, or looking it up on the internet or in a book?

Thinking about

The way a computer references opening books and end game tablebases,
along with "forty-eleven thousand" historical games for middle game
help, is exactly analogous to a human looking it up on the internet or
in a book. The information being accessed in both cases = 1:1. Do you
understand the term "reference material"? Do you understand that
"reference material" is not the same as human memory? For example, when
this site https://www.sscp.net/cgi-bin/content.cgi?page=807#ref
specifies that "Reference materials are not allowed in the testing
room.", they are not telling folks to leave their mind/memory at home.
Because of the way computers + storage devices store/retrieve
information, they themselves are considered to be reference materials,
assuming they have relevant information stored on them.

Reference materials are not allowed in typical chess tournaments
because everyone (other than you, apparently) understands the
difference between, and the general superiority of, reference materials
vs. human memory.

It is your claim that a computer referencing 1:1 digital copies is more
analogous to a human "thinking about" than it is to a human referencing
1:1 digital copies (internet). Do you realize how ridiculous your claim
is?

MaximRecoil wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
wrote:
But why should that be the
case? Is the way a computer moves pieces around more analgous to a
human's doing it internally or externally?
internally.

The way a computer "plays out" positional possibilties is exactly
analogous to a human setting up extra chess boards and playing out
positional possibilities on each one.

I disagree.

Where *are* these "extra chess boards"?


The computer of course can do
this much faster than a human.

Actually, most computers would find it very difficult to set up extra
chess boards and play out positional possibilities on each one.

The computer's actions are only
analogous to a human playing out possibilities in his mind, to the
exact same extent that a human playing out possibilities only in his
mind is analogous to a human playing out possibilities on extra chess
boards; that is to say, not particularly analogous at all, which is why
the latter is cheating in a typical tournament, while the former is
not.

Begs the question.


Is the way a computer has
an opening book and ending book more analagous to a human's thinking
about, or looking it up on the internet or in a book?
Thinking about

The way a computer references opening books and end game tablebases,
along with "forty-eleven thousand" historical games for middle game
help, is exactly analogous to a human looking it up on the internet or
in a book.

No, it's not.

(hey, if you can just say "is not", so can I.)


The information being accessed in both cases = 1:1. Do you
understand the term "reference material"?

Ah, the discussion devolves to "do you understand?"

I'm done. goodbye.



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

On Dec 7, 10:48 am, "diegoami" wrote:

people and cars.As far as I know, there has never been races between people and cars.
Not even people and horses. Seems a wrong analogy to me.

There have been races between people and horses, Jesse Owens had to
suffer through one after winning the 1936 Olympics on orders from
Brundage and company.

There have been others. And back in the early days of motor vehicles,
there were occasional man versus machine match-ups (those vehicles
often had top speeds of 30 miles per hour and broke down often).

But one doesn't see man vs. car matches today as it would make no
sense, in the same way a computer versus a man will make no sense in
chess in 30 years.

SBD wrote:
On Dec 7, 10:48 am, "diegoami" wrote:

people and cars.As far as I know, there has never been races between people and cars.
Not even people and horses. Seems a wrong analogy to me.

There have been races between people and horses, Jesse Owens had to
suffer through one after winning the 1936 Olympics on orders from
Brundage and company.

There have been others. And back in the early days of motor vehicles,
there were occasional man versus machine match-ups (those vehicles
often had top speeds of 30 miles per hour and broke down often).

But one doesn't see man vs. car matches today as it would make no
sense, in the same way a computer versus a man will make no sense in
chess in 30 years.

Givin certain contitions, a man can out perform a motorcycle and some
automobiles.
I suspect the same set of rigid controls could be applied and designed
to level they playing field.

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
MaximRecoil wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
wrote:
But why should that be the
case? Is the way a computer moves pieces around more analgous to a
human's doing it internally or externally?
internally.

The way a computer "plays out" positional possibilties is exactly
analogous to a human setting up extra chess boards and playing out
positional possibilities on each one.

I disagree.

Where *are* these "extra chess boards"?

They are digital representations of chess positions. Digital data is
just as tangible as real life objects. At this moment, human thought,
is not. If we get to the point that we can do a memory dump of a human,
then we could have the folks who play against computers imagine a
positional possibility in the game, dump that thought and print it out
and have it as a tangible reference material. Only then would we have a
valid analogy between what the computer does and the human does, and
only for that particular aspect. Or, the human could simply have extra
chess sets to create the tangible reference material, and once again we
have a winner in the valid analogy department, like I said previously.

The computer of course can do
this much faster than a human.

Actually, most computers would find it very difficult to set up extra
chess boards and play out positional possibilities on each one.

Do you think there is a difference in function between a digital
representation of a chess position that the computer generates and
references, vs. physical chess sets? Either one is tangible. BTW, with
robotics, a computer could easily set up and manipulate pieces on a
physical chess set, but what would be the point, aside from the novelty
aspect, when their internally generated digital representations of
chess positions accomplish *the exact same thing* in a functional
sense?

The computer's actions are only
analogous to a human playing out possibilities in his mind, to the
exact same extent that a human playing out possibilities only in his
mind is analogous to a human playing out possibilities on extra chess
boards; that is to say, not particularly analogous at all, which is why
the latter is cheating in a typical tournament, while the former is
not.

Begs the question.

Obviously the above text confused you. In more simple terms:

A human playing out possibilities on extra physical chess sets is
analogous to a computer generating and referencing digital
representations of chess positions, because they both involve creating
and accessing tangible reference materials. A human thinking about
positional possibilities, but not creating tangible reference materials
to represent the thoughts (e.g., playing out possibilities on extra
chess sets), is not particularly analogous to either, *due to the lack
of reference materials* in the process.


Is the way a computer has
an opening book and ending book more analagous to a human's thinking
about, or looking it up on the internet or in a book?
Thinking about

The way a computer references opening books and end game tablebases,
along with "forty-eleven thousand" historical games for middle game
help, is exactly analogous to a human looking it up on the internet or
in a book.

No, it's not.

(hey, if you can just say "is not", so can I.)

The problem is, I didn't just simply say "is not", and by claiming so,
you are demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension abilities
and/or your lack of general comprehension of logical concepts. This is
a case of reference materials vs. no reference materials. Is that
simple enough? When given three options, two of which involve reference
materials, and one which does not, you went ahead and picked one
involving reference materials, and one that does *not* involve
reference materials, and claimed that they are the two that are most
analogous among the three! It wasn't even a trick question and you got
it blatantly wrong.