From: markv@pixar.com (Mark VandeWettering)
Subject: Re: Computers & chess ethics
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:46:04 GMT

>>>   What?  Are you comparing computer hardware to the biological entities
>>>that constitute the human brain?  We're not talking about the same thing
>>>here.  The computer playing against a human player has an unfair advantage
>>>because it can refer to an opening book during play, and can analyze the
>>>game on a separate board, while the human does not have those privileges.

	Unfair? More on this later...

>>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.  

>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.  

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


				Mark T. VandeWettering
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA