Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992 22:16:18 CDT
From: Howard Wachtel <U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
 <1992Jul4.015915.10248@panix.com> <61518@cup.portal.com>
 <1992Jul5.205642.28320@cis.uab.edu> <92191.122924U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <SJE.92Jul9155112@xylos.ma30.bull.com> <92195.193417U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <u895174.711114141@bruny> <92202.195726U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
 <markv.711913564@pixar>

In article <markv.711913564@pixar>, markv@pixar.com (Mark VandeWettering) says:

[...much deleted...]

>>>Is this really the case?  True, computer chess programs have access to
>>>an opening book of moves.  You say they "refer" to this book.  I
>>>propose that this is no different to a human "referring" to his own memory
>>>of openings.
>
>>   And I propose that they are as different as night and day.  The human
>>memory can fail; the computer's cannot.  Humans blunder; humans forget.
>>Computers do not (at least in theory).
>
>        Actually, one of the problems with solving REAL AI problems
>        (chess appears largely to be engineering now) is developping
>        a model of computer memory which DOES forget.  The ability to forget
>        allows you to concentrate your limited, squishy, grey matter on to
>        the tasks currently of interest.

    That's very interesting, but I fail to see how that applies to
the subject under discussion.  At issue is whether computer "failures"
(blunders) in tournament chess are as frequent or as severe as those
of human players.

>>If you were so inclined, you could sit down and rote learn
>>>a plethora of openings, but this would not be considered unfair.  A
>>>computer is able to take this to the extreme.
>
>>   But it would be considered unfair if I had a copy of ECO in my lap.
>>So why should we deny the human opponent of the computer the right to
>>do so in a tournament game?
>
>        It is my understanding that GMs and IMs often have tens of thousands
>        of positions in openings memorized anyway.  They may make mistakes,
>        but the very fact that they win so often means they make very few.
>        Also, if openings were all there was to chess, this would be a much
>        stronger argument.  Eventually "book learning" must turn into search,
>        just as it does for humans.
>
   Again I do not see how this bears on the issue of whether or not the human
player should have the right to consult an opening manual during a
tournament game against a computer.  For GM's this privilege may be
insignificant, but not so for the club player.

   Of course openings are not all there is to chess, but certainly
knowledge of opening theory can have a significant impact on the outcome
of a game.  The computer can play its moves instantly, from its
pre-programmed opening book, while the club player may fall far behind
on the clock trying to solve his opening problems.

>        Humans have several advantages over computers to compensate for
>        their lack of speed.  One important one is that humans develop PLANS
>        to help focus their attention on what they view to be critical to
>        achieving the goal.  This limits their search space and permits them
>        to make much more "intelligent" use of their time.

   Of course humans have that "advantage", but it is arguable whether it
is sufficient to compensate for the advantages that the computer has.

>Computers
>        (at least most of the sucessful ones) tend to brute force evaluate
>        many positions, aided by heuristic functions.   This often means
>        that their endgame play is unguided, and often flawed. (Actually,
>        considerable improvements have been made in the past few years,
>        many computers are beginning to play endgames appropriately.  My
>        experience with programs like GNUchess is that they are much
>        weaker in the endgame than in the opening).

   Perhaps an explanation for this is that the human programmers of
   the chessplaying machines are finding it harder to develop
   good heuristic functions for the endgame than for the middlegame.

>>>I don't believe the computer is "cheating" by storing a representation
>>>of the board in it's memory and subsequently manipulating this
>>>representation.  If you are considering a move and trying to decide
>>>your opponent's response, then in your mind is an image of the chess
>>>board with it's pieces in a new configuration.  This hardly constitutes
>>>a "seperate board".  The fact is, a computer can do this faultlessly.
>>>Is this fair?  Well no, but that's a seperate issue entirely.
>
>        Fair?  What's "fair"?  If you ask me if I think that computers
>        should be given chess titles, I would say no.  You don't expect
>        Indy cars to win the 100m dash either.

   If not, then why should they have the opportunity to determine which
human _does_ win a title such as a state or national championship?

>But complaining that
>        something is "unfair" because you can't search 200,000,000 board
>        positions for each move is a bit odd.

   What is odd about it?  Actually the speed advantage of the computer was
not really the thrust of my argument (although it is worth considering);
rather, it is that the machine is storing information in a "memory"
which is more like a scratchpad than the human player's memory; hence
my suggestion to give the human player the privilege of using a
scratchpad/separate board.

After all, computers are now
>        being engineered ESPECIALLY to play chess.  You didn't have that
>        advantage.  It is actually surprising to me that their are humans
>        who can still beat the top machines....

>>   I think that it is not really a separate issue.  It is
>>unfortunate that we use the same term "memory" to refer to
>>two entirely different entities--the computer RAM and the human mind.
>>My mind's image of the chessboard and of any line of opening moves
>>are necessarily imperfect.  If that were not so, you would have no
>>need to deny the human player the right to consult an opening book
>>during the game.
>
>        Actually, it is not unfair if BOTH have access to the same book,
>        but neither is it particularly interesting.

   Why does giving the human opponent the privilege of using a separate
board or an opening book make the game less interesting?  It is unlikely
that the two will be using the _same_ book, but I would think it would
still be interesting even in that case, assuming all else is unchanged.
________________________________________________________________
Howard K. Wachtel              University of Illinois at Chicago
U13054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU        Phone (312) 975-7970
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess