To really test the oft claimed reasoning that computers are better is to
try Bobby Fischer's suggestion by turning off computer opening book
preparation. I'd even go further and have the top grandmasters play
Fritz using either Fischer Random Chess or Shuffle Chess. This way
neither side can rely on theory to bang out 30 moves before "original"
play commences. By using shuffle chess, each side is forced to think
from the first move. I wish they'd try this against Fritz. This way we'd
all know whether or not computers have really advanced to the point when
it's not feasible to play against them anymore.

I'd really be very interested to see such a match between GM "whoever"
against Shredder, Junior, Fritz, etc. At least the "know it all"
commentators would be forced to talk sensibly and not rattle off "oh,
this move was played by such and such a player years ago."

If a human GM was still to win, would you suggest lobotomising him/her?

Keep banging those rocks together, Joey.

"I said the words: 'Don't forget my father's watch.'..."
--'Butch Coolidge' aka Bruce Willis (Pulp Fiction, dir. Quentin Tarantino).

Well said...

"And all the good people of the church said, AMEN"

"Melissa" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14 Nov 2003 00:19:08 GMT, Mhoulsby wrote:

If a human GM was still to win, would you suggest lobotomising
him/her?

I guess that would be going a little far, but the concept does bring
up interesting thoughts...especially for me.

Years ago, I spent a little time studying openings, middle game
strategies, and end games, but then made a decision to stop the
study, and just to play.

Over the subsequent years, I've enjoyed the game so much more than
during those "study years". I've pretty much forgotten all the book
openings and their variations, and this pleases me immensely, because
for me, every game is a chance to think afresh. From beginning to
end.

The only time I'm reminded of the book openings is if the person I'm
playing with points out to me that we're playing the third
declination of so-and-so's variation of so-and-so's so-and-so gambit
(or something like that).

I may now and again re-invent the wheel, but there's a special
feeling when it comes only from within me...as if I really did invent
the wheel. That's something that can't be taken away from me, because
I don't know any better.

Ah...the freedom of being a mere hobbyist. No pressure to learn how
to sleepwalk through the first 30 moves before I actually get to
think for myself. And sometimes, because of my undisciplined play, I
surprise both my friend and myself with a moment of inspiration both
of us can enjoy (though I might enjoy more :-)).

Whenever friends ask me to teach them how to play, I tell them I
can't teach in the "serious, conventional" way, because that's not
why I play the game. The beauty of spontaneous thought is my journey
called chess. It is as much telepathic psychology as it is
mathematical strategy.

My willful ignorance let's me see a new world every time I look at
the board, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes, even the
most beautiful things are only at their transcendent best when we
experience them for the first time. One move of a pawn unleashes its
radiant beauty and changes the dynamic of the entire board, with
every aspect of that change glowing with its own inner perfection. I
wouldn't miss that for the world. If someone had done that exact move
before, and I knew about it, the game would have a different meaning
for me...something less thrilling.

Don't define me with a number, and don't set the clock on my mind.
This is not a race...this is just a part of life, and time is what we
have.

What a magical game. It means so much to all of us, yet there are so
many ways we can experience and enjoy it. Truly I say...to each our
own! :-)

- --
Melissa

My PGP public key:
mailto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQE/tIPjKgHVMc6ouYMRAq5FAJ9+9eE+NopzsWWaT8c08Zs8hjTkFg Cfezi+
Uz+WZcSQbB35j6jhOswcSxg=
=NDop
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: Melissa
Date: 14/11/03 07:29 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14 Nov 2003 00:19:08 GMT, Mhoulsby wrote:

If a human GM was still to win, would you suggest lobotomising
him/her?

I guess that would be going a little far, but the concept does bring
up interesting thoughts...especially for me.

Years ago, I spent a little time studying openings, middle game
strategies, and end games, but then made a decision to stop the
study, and just to play.

Over the subsequent years, I've enjoyed the game so much more than
during those "study years". I've pretty much forgotten all the book
openings and their variations, and this pleases me immensely, because
for me, every game is a chance to think afresh. From beginning to
end.

The only time I'm reminded of the book openings is if the person I'm
playing with points out to me that we're playing the third
declination of so-and-so's variation of so-and-so's so-and-so gambit
(or something like that).

I may now and again re-invent the wheel, but there's a special
feeling when it comes only from within me...as if I really did invent
the wheel. That's something that can't be taken away from me, because
I don't know any better.

Ah...the freedom of being a mere hobbyist. No pressure to learn how
to sleepwalk through the first 30 moves before I actually get to
think for myself. And sometimes, because of my undisciplined play, I
surprise both my friend and myself with a moment of inspiration both
of us can enjoy (though I might enjoy more :-)).

Whenever friends ask me to teach them how to play, I tell them I
can't teach in the "serious, conventional" way, because that's not
why I play the game. The beauty of spontaneous thought is my journey
called chess. It is as much telepathic psychology as it is
mathematical strategy.

My willful ignorance let's me see a new world every time I look at
the board, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes, even the
most beautiful things are only at their transcendent best when we
experience them for the first time. One move of a pawn unleashes its
radiant beauty and changes the dynamic of the entire board, with
every aspect of that change glowing with its own inner perfection. I
wouldn't miss that for the world. If someone had done that exact move
before, and I knew about it, the game would have a different meaning
for me...something less thrilling.

Don't define me with a number, and don't set the clock on my mind.
This is not a race...this is just a part of life, and time is what we
have.

What a magical game. It means so much to all of us, yet there are so
many ways we can experience and enjoy it. Truly I say...to each our
own! :-)

- --
Melissa


Great post!

Thanks
Mark

Melissa, if you were running for chess president, you'd get my vote....

Bigbadjoe
"Melissa" wrote in message
...

I guess that would be going a little far, but the concept does bring
up interesting thoughts...especially for me.

Years ago, I spent a little time studying openings, middle game
strategies, and end games, but then made a decision to stop the
study, and just to play.

Over the subsequent years, I've enjoyed the game so much more than
during those "study years". I've pretty much forgotten all the book
openings and their variations, and this pleases me immensely, because
for me, every game is a chance to think afresh. From beginning to
end.

The only time I'm reminded of the book openings is if the person I'm
playing with points out to me that we're playing the third
declination of so-and-so's variation of so-and-so's so-and-so gambit
(or something like that).

I may now and again re-invent the wheel, but there's a special
feeling when it comes only from within me...as if I really did invent
the wheel. That's something that can't be taken away from me, because
I don't know any better.

Ah...the freedom of being a mere hobbyist. No pressure to learn how
to sleepwalk through the first 30 moves before I actually get to
think for myself. And sometimes, because of my undisciplined play, I
surprise both my friend and myself with a moment of inspiration both
of us can enjoy (though I might enjoy more :-)).

Whenever friends ask me to teach them how to play, I tell them I
can't teach in the "serious, conventional" way, because that's not
why I play the game. The beauty of spontaneous thought is my journey
called chess. It is as much telepathic psychology as it is
mathematical strategy.

My willful ignorance let's me see a new world every time I look at
the board, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes, even the
most beautiful things are only at their transcendent best when we
experience them for the first time. One move of a pawn unleashes its
radiant beauty and changes the dynamic of the entire board, with
every aspect of that change glowing with its own inner perfection. I
wouldn't miss that for the world. If someone had done that exact move
before, and I knew about it, the game would have a different meaning
for me...something less thrilling.

Don't define me with a number, and don't set the clock on my mind.
This is not a race...this is just a part of life, and time is what we
have.

What a magical game. It means so much to all of us, yet there are so
many ways we can experience and enjoy it. Truly I say...to each our
own! :-)

- --
Melissa

My PGP public key:
mailto

"Alberich" wrote in message
. ..
To really test the oft claimed reasoning that computers are better is to
try Bobby Fischer's suggestion by turning off computer opening book
preparation

Can we turn off the GM's opening book too?

--
GCP

Alberich wrote:
To really test the oft claimed reasoning that computers are better is
to try Bobby Fischer's suggestion by turning off computer opening book
preparation. I'd even go further and have the top grandmasters play
Fritz using either Fischer Random Chess or Shuffle Chess. This way
neither side can rely on theory to bang out 30 moves before "original"
play commences.

By stating thirty moves, I think you're overestimating even grandmasters'
opening preparation. If the first thirty moves were going to be prepared,
what would be the point of playing a time control where the first segment
is forty moves in two hours?

In game 1 of the current Kasparov--Fritz (I'm sorry, `X3D Fritz') match,
Fritz's last book move was 10... Ne4. Kasparov's opening preparation
obviously went deeper, as 11.O-O-O is a novelty and he will, of course,
have analysed what was coming up. Both players, though, had started to
spend considerable amounts of time thinking by move 20.

On a related note, I wonder if the Fritz team's opening book consists just
of openings from past games or if it contains some of Fritz's own
analysis. It would have been a reasonable guess that Kasparov would
play the variation he used successfully against Deep Junior so it would
have made sense for Fritz to have thought about some of the resulting
positions in advance of the match, just as Kasparov will have done.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Nuclear Shack (TM): it's like a house
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ in the woods that's made of atoms!

Great post.

Along another line, it strikes me that without some sort of vested academic
interest in computer chess (which excludes most chess players, no less the
general public) the Fritz vs. Kaspy thing is kind of like watching a human
challenge a calculator to a multiplication contest.

Yes, we know that computers shift bits around at an increasingly speedier
rate in support for processing algorithms. We have built them to do so, and
we see the fruit of that labor all around us, every day. So, in as much as
chess can be reduced to an algorithm (if x then y else z) we would expect
that speed & logic advances in both computer hardware and software would
continue to make for a more powerful "chess computer", whereby chess is
truly "computed".

What should be celebrated, then, is the human effort and innovation which
goes into building such machines. What do chess computers reveal to us
about the way chess is played by people? How can we continue to use them as
a tool for understanding chess in the way that any technology represents an
opportunity for people to extend an understanding of their world?

To anthropomorphize the computer and turn it into a battle of "Man vs.
Machine" is to create a freak show and a misunderstanding of the beauty,
history, and usefulness of the technology, and to perpetuate myths and
misunderstandings regarding the relationship humans have to technology.
And, ultimately, it communicates a fallacy regarding the activity of chess:
"if computers can play so well, then why should I try?" That's a dangerous
message.

Do you know what I considered to be a wonderful part of Game 2 (Kaspy vs.
Fritz)? Kaspy's blunder! Chess is a wonderful human activity, but it is
simply computation for the machine.

Joe

"BigBadJoe" wrote in message
...
Melissa, if you were running for chess president, you'd get my vote....

Bigbadjoe
"Melissa" wrote in message
...

I guess that would be going a little far, but the concept does bring
up interesting thoughts...especially for me...

On a related note, I wonder if the Fritz team's opening book consists just
of openings from past games or if it contains some of Fritz's own
analysis.

It contains analysis from a member of Fritz's team, Mr. Alexander Kure.

--
GCP

I only play to chess to win. You are an angel from heaven?

"Melissa" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14 Nov 2003 00:19:08 GMT, Mhoulsby wrote:

If a human GM was still to win, would you suggest lobotomising
him/her?

I guess that would be going a little far, but the concept does bring
up interesting thoughts...especially for me.

Years ago, I spent a little time studying openings, middle game
strategies, and end games, but then made a decision to stop the
study, and just to play.

Over the subsequent years, I've enjoyed the game so much more than
during those "study years". I've pretty much forgotten all the book
openings and their variations, and this pleases me immensely, because
for me, every game is a chance to think afresh. From beginning to
end.

The only time I'm reminded of the book openings is if the person I'm
playing with points out to me that we're playing the third
declination of so-and-so's variation of so-and-so's so-and-so gambit
(or something like that).

I may now and again re-invent the wheel, but there's a special
feeling when it comes only from within me...as if I really did invent
the wheel. That's something that can't be taken away from me, because
I don't know any better.

Ah...the freedom of being a mere hobbyist. No pressure to learn how
to sleepwalk through the first 30 moves before I actually get to
think for myself. And sometimes, because of my undisciplined play, I
surprise both my friend and myself with a moment of inspiration both
of us can enjoy (though I might enjoy more :-)).

Whenever friends ask me to teach them how to play, I tell them I
can't teach in the "serious, conventional" way, because that's not
why I play the game. The beauty of spontaneous thought is my journey
called chess. It is as much telepathic psychology as it is
mathematical strategy.

My willful ignorance let's me see a new world every time I look at
the board, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes, even the
most beautiful things are only at their transcendent best when we
experience them for the first time. One move of a pawn unleashes its
radiant beauty and changes the dynamic of the entire board, with
every aspect of that change glowing with its own inner perfection. I
wouldn't miss that for the world. If someone had done that exact move
before, and I knew about it, the game would have a different meaning
for me...something less thrilling.

Don't define me with a number, and don't set the clock on my mind.
This is not a race...this is just a part of life, and time is what we
have.

What a magical game. It means so much to all of us, yet there are so
many ways we can experience and enjoy it. Truly I say...to each our
own! :-)

- --
Melissa

My PGP public key:
mailto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQE/tIPjKgHVMc6ouYMRAq5FAJ9+9eE+NopzsWWaT8c08Zs8hjTkFg Cfezi+
Uz+WZcSQbB35j6jhOswcSxg=
=NDop
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----