| |
Main
Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:26:39
From: bill
Subject: 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.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 00:49:58
From: MaximRecoil
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
David Richerby wrote:
> 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.
First of all, having someone else physically move your pieces for you
if you are not physically able to is not specifically disallowed. If it
were, the ACLU and similar organizations would be on it like a cheap
suit.
Secondly, this isn't about the FIDE laws of chess, this is about the
discrepancy between specifically disallowing "X" for one side and
allowing "X" for the other side, in an instance of both sides having
potential benefit from "X".
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:30:26
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
"bill" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why not even it out slightly by taking away all opening and ending books
> and let the computer think out each move fresh.
Fritz's 10. Re3!? in the last game of the recent Kramnik match proves that
the machine understands chess very deeply, and that perhaps the opening book
is not as critical to playing strength as most people think.
For example, Shredder/Rybka have helped me discover new resources very early
in a certain line of the Sicilian that all the opening books say is
inferior. I won't tell what it is because I may play one of you some day :)
Suffice it to say Black has to play very precisely, almost
counter-intuitively, just to reach an inferior position with not a lot of
counterplay. Not exactly what Black looks for in this particular line. Last
nigh my opponent, rated over 1900, played right into one of the less optimal
lines for Black and got crushed.
Practically speaking, non-book moves are very difficult to play against
because they require thinking or a lot of experience. What is the "book" on
the King's Indian Attack?
A computer will simply not allow itself to get into an inferior middlegame.
From a roughly equal position Fritz can beat almost anyone. Maybe not
Kramnik, not today, but very soon.
That's one reason why I suggest turning off the book and tablebases, or
allowing humans to refer to charts as well.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:32:09
From: MaximRecoil
Subject: Re: 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.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:08:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
MaximRecoil <[email protected] > 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!
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:57:46
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
MaximRecoil wrote:
>
>David Richerby wrote:
>
>> MaximRecoil <[email protected]> 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.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 03:40:25
From: MaximRecoil
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
David Richerby wrote:
> MaximRecoil <[email protected]> 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?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:55:33
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
MaximRecoil <[email protected] > 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!
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:30:13
From: MaximRecoil
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> bill <[email protected]> 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.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:14:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
MaximRecoil <[email protected] > 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!
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:59:45
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
>MaximRecoil <[email protected]> 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/ >
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 18:47:44
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Computer v. Humans unfair?
|
bill <[email protected] > 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
|
|
