Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 12:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 16
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

The way matches Man vs Computer are played now is not fair

I think a panel of GMs should play Deep Fritz. Or maybe the GM should
be allowed to move pieces around on the chessboard when playing a
computer.

Now that would make for interesting chess games IMHO. You don't need to
dumb down the computer, you need to give men more tools

Regards
Diego Amicabile

  #2   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 01:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,015
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?


diegoami wrote:

The way matches Man vs Computer are played now is not fair


It is pretty much how it has always been. Except now the machines are
winning even against world champions.

I think a panel of GMs should play Deep Fritz. Or maybe the GM should
be allowed to move pieces around on the chessboard when playing a
computer.


I think Freestyle is the way to go. Any combination of other computers
and/or GMs versus the current supercomputer champion. Cheating becomes
impossible when you are allowed to use any and all resources at your
disposal. The objective is to see the best possible games of chess
played no blunders on either side.

Now that would make for interesting chess games IMHO. You don't need to
dumb down the computer, you need to give men more tools


I largely agree. Although I would allow the humans to use computers
too.

Regards,
Martin Brown

  #3   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 02:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2005
Posts: 178
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?


"diegoami" schreef in bericht
ups.com...
The way matches Man vs Computer are played now is not fair

I think a panel of GMs should play Deep Fritz. Or maybe the GM should
be allowed to move pieces around on the chessboard when playing a
computer.


Good idea!!
The GM should have an analysis-board at his side, on the playing table,
when playing engines.
And maybe some theory on tablebases as well.
That could improve man's chances



  #4   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 03:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2003
Posts: 268
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

Ruud wrote:

Good idea!!
The GM should have an analysis-board at his side, on the playing table,
when playing engines.
And maybe some theory on tablebases as well.
That could improve man's chances


Hmm ... unfair?

You sit down and play a human OTB ... you get your scoresheet and your brain.
You sit down and play a computer OTB ... you should get your scoresheet and
your brain. The computer gets an openning book, just like humans have an
opportunity to memorize opening book. Same thing goes for tablebases.

Kramnik lost ... plain and simple ... he simply was not as good as the
computer at the time he played.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


  #5   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 04:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2005
Posts: 178
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

The computer gets an openning book, just like humans have an
opportunity to memorize opening book.


Humans have this through years of practice (centuries), millions of games
(billion).
Computers have an openingbook in a few hours, gathering some databases and
editing by a programmer.
Let a computer develope it's own theories, I would say, and forbid it using
human experience. ;-)




  #6   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 04:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2003
Posts: 268
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

Ruud wrote:
The computer gets an openning book, just like humans have an
opportunity to memorize opening book.


Humans have this through years of practice (centuries), millions of games
(billion).
Computers have an openingbook in a few hours, gathering some databases and
editing by a programmer.
Let a computer develope it's own theories, I would say, and forbid it using
human experience. ;-)


Kramnik was beat fair and square. You'll live.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


  #7   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 06:43 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,305
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

Ruud wrote:
The computer gets an openning book, just like humans have an
opportunity to memorize opening book.


Humans have this through years of practice (centuries), millions of games
(billion).
Computers have an openingbook in a few hours, gathering some databases and
editing by a programmer.
Let a computer develope it's own theories, I would say, and forbid it using
human experience. ;-)



Can we similarly forbid the GMs from using any knowledge they've gained
from computer analysis?

--
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/
  #8   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 08:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
Ruud wrote:
The computer gets an openning book, just like humans have an
opportunity to memorize opening book.


Humans have this through years of practice (centuries), millions of games
(billion).
Computers have an openingbook in a few hours, gathering some databases
and editing by a programmer.
Let a computer develope it's own theories, I would say, and forbid it
using human experience. ;-)


Can we similarly forbid the GMs from using any knowledge they've gained
from computer analysis?


We can never completely reconcile differences between how humans and
computers think. Another poster rhetorically asked what the difference was
between storage and processing.

But there is a difference between storage and processing, which I'll
illustrate. Let's say the game of chess has been solved for all moves
leading up to a "one pawn" advantage for both sides. I'm assuming that's
enough for a top GM or top engine to win. And let's say that data file were
stored on two computers, one a standalone machine with a chess engine, and
the other accessible to a human. And let's say a human utilizing this
database and a proxy for the engine (also consulting the tables) sat down to
play a match. Would anyone be interested? I would not because all they'd be
doing is following the thread.

Would such a match be more interesting if only the computer were permitted
to consult the database? Would it be fair? That is essentially what modern
opening theory is all about. Getting an advantage as far into the game as
you possibly can. Ok, instead of move 12, 19, or 25 "book" would end at move
43. Kasparov's "Great Predecessors" might have called it "middlegame theory"
since as some have pointed out GMs know certain lines beyond 25 moves.

Using a full opening book is unfair for two reasons. First of all the human
has got to think about those moves, whereas an entity consulting a "book"
can play them automatically. Remember, even when booked up players think
about which variation they will use. Second, a human is capable of
forgetting, which every player does at some point during a game. A machine
can't forget because it has the book open. If the computer is so brilliant,
if it can see 8 moves ahead on each and every move, why does it need an
opening book anyway?

I would guess that turning off the book, even at move 1, would *at most*
weaken the computer only slightly. Maybe 100 points. If they get into an
even middlegame they'll still destroy almost anyone, regardless. Does anyone
really think that a 2613-rated GM can beat a top engine with the book turned
off? I seriously doubt it.
adp


  #9   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 08:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2003
Posts: 268
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

We can never completely reconcile differences between how humans and
computers think. Another poster rhetorically asked what the difference was
between storage and processing.


But there is a difference between storage and processing, which I'll
illustrate. Let's say the game of chess has been solved for all moves
leading up to a "one pawn" advantage for both sides. I'm assuming that's
enough for a top GM or top engine to win. And let's say that data file were
stored on two computers, one a standalone machine with a chess engine, and
the other accessible to a human. And let's say a human utilizing this
database and a proxy for the engine (also consulting the tables) sat down to
play a match. Would anyone be interested? I would not because all they'd be
doing is following the thread.


And how do you suppose they would solve the game of chess down to one pawn?
Of course, by computer! A human mind can not do it, because a human skill is
pattern matching and not raw processing power. It is very fair to say that
the computer SHOULD win a game with that knowledge handy. It is not possible
to put that knowledge into a human.

Current programs were built to play chess. They were built to play it well.
They are not given the data as if chess had been solved. They are given the
information they need to play the game. How often do you start like this?

1. a4

I bet not often. Why, because you have in your brain, the knowledge that that
is a poor move. That knowledge is either from learned behaviour of learning
and trusting somebody elses knowledge. This is no different for a computer
using an openning book. Same goes for end game. It is possible for a
computer and a human to play end games perfectly. Humans just take a
different approach to do it.

Would such a match be more interesting if only the computer were permitted
to consult the database? Would it be fair? That is essentially what modern
opening theory is all about. Getting an advantage as far into the game as
you possibly can. Ok, instead of move 12, 19, or 25 "book" would end at move
43. Kasparov's "Great Predecessors" might have called it "middlegame theory"
since as some have pointed out GMs know certain lines beyond 25 moves.


Modern openning books are FAR from a database of chess [solved]. It
represents nothing really different than what a GM knows about openings (i.e.
don't start with 1.a4).

Using a full opening book is unfair for two reasons. First of all the human
has got to think about those moves, whereas an entity consulting a "book"
can play them automatically.


There are many speed chess players that have learned openings and do this very
thing. It is a computers advantage that it can do this faster and with many
more opening positions that most or all people.

Remember, even when booked up players think
about which variation they will use. Second, a human is capable of
forgetting, which every player does at some point during a game. A machine
can't forget because it has the book open. If the computer is so brilliant,
if it can see 8 moves ahead on each and every move, why does it need an
opening book anyway?


It is accumulated knowledge, just like it is for a human or animal. What you
argue is that, since a human doesn't have a photographic memory that can hold
the same information a chess engine has access to, that you should somehow
limit the chess engine to be like a human and be restricted too. Now THAT is
not fair. A human being, to win a game of chess against a computer, will have
to use an attribute or skill uniquely human that a chess engine doesn't have
[pattern matching is a MASSIVE advantage in the human mind that a computer
does not do natively ... that is why it must consider all potential moves and
then determine the best way to evaluate them by pruning the options].

The fact is that raw processing power was enough to beat the human Kramnik.

The only thing that is going to change that is a handicap.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


  #10   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 08:26 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2003
Posts: 268
Default Man vs Machine .- unfair ?

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:


Oh yes ... funny nobody complained until after Kramnik lost. I didn't hear
Kramnik complaing.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Deep Fritz 10 on a single processor machine? RocketMan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 1 December 9th 06 04:55 PM
Searching: TASCBOARD chess pieces (first / second hand) Gosse rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 1 October 14th 06 07:54 AM
Chess Life rehires GM Evans! [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 209 September 3rd 06 02:09 PM
Man vs machine - next big match coming Mark Mason rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 October 28th 05 10:15 PM
Man vs Machine - next big match coming up Mark Mason rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 October 27th 05 08:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017