Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 06:26 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?

Why not even it out slightly by taking away all opening and ending books
and let the computer think out each move fresh. Maybe it would still win,
but it will take more time in the opening and therefore have less time in
the middlegame to think, therefore weakening it.
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 6th 06, 06:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2003
Posts: 268
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?

bill wrote:
Why not even it out slightly by taking away all opening and ending books
and let the computer think out each move fresh. Maybe it would still win,
but it will take more time in the opening and therefore have less time in
the middlegame to think, therefore weakening it.


But then you would have to do brain surgery on the human to take away its
opening and ending information that was memorized as well.

You can't make the computer into a human. The fact is, that the computer BEAT
Kramnik. Deal with it.

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


  #3   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 06:30 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 51
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?


Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
bill wrote:
Why not even it out slightly by taking away all opening and ending books
and let the computer think out each move fresh. Maybe it would still win,
but it will take more time in the opening and therefore have less time in
the middlegame to think, therefore weakening it.


But then you would have to do brain surgery on the human to take away its
opening and ending information that was memorized as well.


Nope. Human memory is already legal in chess, and it always has been.
So the computer doesn't have human memory? That's too bad. That doesn't
mean that you can logically just hand it something superior to human
memory in many ways (tangible reference materials), that same something
that is already illegal in chess.

According to your "logic", if I don't have as good of a memory as a GM,
then I should be able to bring any and all tangible reference materials
to the table, you know, to make us "even" (lol), or else, the GM should
have to submit to surgery, to bring his memory down to my level.

  #4   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 10:14 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?

MaximRecoil wrote:
Human memory is already legal in chess, and it always has been. So
the computer doesn't have human memory? That's too bad. That
doesn't mean that you can logically just hand it something superior
to human memory in many ways (tangible reference materials), that
same something that is already illegal in chess.


I love the way people get so worked up about this but nobody worries
about Article 1.1 of the FIDE laws of chess, which states, ``The game
of chess is played between two opponents WHO MOVE THEIR PIECES alter-
nately on a square board called a `chessboard'.'' (emphasis mine).


Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Simple Chainsaw (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lethal weapon but it has
no moving parts and it's in realistic
colour!
  #5   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 11:40 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 51
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?


David Richerby wrote:
MaximRecoil wrote:
Human memory is already legal in chess, and it always has been. So
the computer doesn't have human memory? That's too bad. That
doesn't mean that you can logically just hand it something superior
to human memory in many ways (tangible reference materials), that
same something that is already illegal in chess.


I love the way people get so worked up about this but nobody worries
about Article 1.1 of the FIDE laws of chess, which states, ``The game
of chess is played between two opponents WHO MOVE THEIR PIECES alter-
nately on a square board called a `chessboard'.'' (emphasis mine).


Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Simple Chainsaw (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lethal weapon but it has
no moving parts and it's in realistic
colour!


Are you being serious or do you truly not understand why someone would
care about the issue raised in the opening post and not care about the
(non)issue you brought up?



  #6   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 11:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2004
Posts: 834
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?




David Richerby wrote:

MaximRecoil wrote:

Human memory is already legal in chess, and it always has been. So
the computer doesn't have human memory? That's too bad. That
doesn't mean that you can logically just hand it something superior
to human memory in many ways (tangible reference materials), that
same something that is already illegal in chess.


I love the way people get so worked up about this but nobody worries
about Article 1.1 of the FIDE laws of chess, which states, ``The game
of chess is played between two opponents WHO MOVE THEIR PIECES alter-
nately on a square board called a `chessboard'.'' (emphasis mine).


Gotta stop those cheating paraplegics, doncha know...

Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

  #7   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 12:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2004
Posts: 834
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?




MaximRecoil wrote:

David Richerby wrote:

MaximRecoil wrote:

Human memory is already legal in chess, and it always has been. So
the computer doesn't have human memory? That's too bad. That
doesn't mean that you can logically just hand it something superior
to human memory in many ways (tangible reference materials), that
same something that is already illegal in chess.


I love the way people get so worked up about this but nobody worries
about Article 1.1 of the FIDE laws of chess, which states, ``The game
of chess is played between two opponents WHO MOVE THEIR PIECES alter-
nately on a square board called a `chessboard'.'' (emphasis mine).


Are you being serious or do you truly not understand why someone would
care about the issue raised in the opening post and not care about the
(non)issue you brought up?


Please don't quote the entire post including sig.

He was making a joke, and quite a good one at that. It was funny and
made a good point about overly literal interpretation of the rules.

  #8   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 03:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?

MaximRecoil wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I love the way people get so worked up about this but nobody
worries about Article 1.1 of the FIDE laws of chess, which states,
``The game of chess is played between two opponents WHO MOVE THEIR
PIECES alternately on a square board called a `chessboard'.''
(emphasis mine).


Are you being serious or do you truly not understand why someone
would care about the issue raised in the opening post and not care
about the (non)issue you brought up?


``Haha! Only serious.'' You're happy to accept that computers are
different so they don't have to physically move the pieces. But
you're not happy to accept that computers are different so they are
allowed to learn openings, even though their recall of them will
subsequently be perfect.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Expensive Radioactive Apple (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a tasty fruit but it'll make you
glow in the dark and break the bank!
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 04:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 51
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?


David Richerby wrote:
``Haha! Only serious.'' You're happy to accept that computers are
different so they don't have to physically move the pieces. But
you're not happy to accept that computers are different so they are
allowed to learn openings, even though their recall of them will
subsequently be perfect.


So you weren't making a joke? The reason that nobody cares whether or
not a computer moves its own pieces (it could be done with robotics
obviously), is the same reason nobody cares if a physically handicapped
person doesn't move his own pieces. Your line of "reasoning" here is
childlike.

  #10   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 12:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default Computer v. Humans unfair?

MaximRecoil wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
``Haha! Only serious.'' You're happy to accept that computers are
different so they don't have to physically move the pieces. But
you're not happy to accept that computers are different so they are
allowed to learn openings, even though their recall of them will
subsequently be perfect.


So you weren't making a joke? The reason that nobody cares whether
or not a computer moves its own pieces (it could be done with
robotics obviously), is the same reason nobody cares if a physically
handicapped person doesn't move his own pieces.


So you agree that some of the rules of chess are flexible and have to
be interpreted differently for computers to take into account the
fundamental differences between humans and computers. It therefore
follows that the arguments about whether computers are allowed to use,
say, opening books, are a matter of degree, rather than absolutes.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Dish (TM): it's like a fine
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ ceramic dish but it's full of holes!
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
Computer vs Grand Master - Ideas diegoami rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 20 December 11th 06 05:01 PM
Rating and computer performance in Chessmaster 10 Gustaf rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 5 August 31st 06 02:24 AM
Two Computer Match using Auto-232 Alrak OZ Nim rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 1 June 5th 06 12:13 AM
handicapping engines Magnulus rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 23 January 5th 06 12:07 AM
chess computer shopping? - some things to consider Chris Kantack alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 November 27th 03 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 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