ICC for CCT11

[Rolf]

You haven't addressed my points at all, but instead repeated your own points, which my points have already addressed. I refuted your GM/patzer argument by showing that patzer play is legal chess. I refuted your cheating argument by the definition of respective internal storage media of humans and computers.

Any player, human or mechanical, which accesses its own internal storage is not cheating.

Indeed I have addressed it. Hint: with my scenario.

My points address your scenario.

But Matt, do you really plan to enter this here and then talking with a deeply rooted disorder? What do you expect here?

Ok, just kidding. Since you have abstained from any insults I will answer you of course. You say internal storage. Do you really mean it? Then human players play with implantated chips for endgame tablebases.

Oh, so you concede the point on openings, since you're changing the subject to EGTBs. But EGTBs are also copied to internal storage.

I prefer the modul mode. I get the necessary data for the next opponent the afternoon before the game. This is all ok for you? IMO all this would violate the eternal FIDE rules of chess. But computers use all that and you call it perfectly normal internal storage, right?

Therefore I would propose a true robot player for tournaments like CCT. Computers who only use selfdiscovered lines. Without any influence of programmers. He will program the feature as such that of the lines finding. The robot remains the same for 6 months. Of course it can itself improve his play after own analyses before and after tournament games. In these 6 months the different players (C) live in neutral zones outside the realm of the programmers. Then the FIDE rule cheating would stop. And that of the ELO number hystery.

All just IMO, 100x excuses.

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use. My question was, it's not really difficult for you to answer, if this is ok for you. Do you think that I then play according to the rules. Please let your distortions, I didnt change the subject but added the endgame topic to my earlier argument to give it some spice. Show me your standpoint, please. I almost smell it that you begin to talk about extra rights you want to have for the poorly playing chess computers. They are allowed to use all the storages but not a human. I mean CC people steal from humans so I can steal from computer analyses, no? Of course during a normal game after the FIDE rules, right? All implantated by surgery. All legal.

[mhull]

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use.

Each player is limited to its own innate storage. Your objections have now all been answered.

[bob]

You haven't addressed my points at all, but instead repeated your own points, which my points have already addressed. I refuted your GM/patzer argument by showing that patzer play is legal chess. I refuted your cheating argument by the definition of respective internal storage media of humans and computers.

Any player, human or mechanical, which accesses its own internal storage is not cheating.

Indeed I have addressed it. Hint: with my scenario.

My points address your scenario.

But Matt, do you really plan to enter this here and then talking with a deeply rooted disorder? What do you expect here?

Ok, just kidding. Since you have abstained from any insults I will answer you of course. You say internal storage. Do you really mean it? Then human players play with implantated chips for endgame tablebases.

Oh, so you concede the point on openings, since you're changing the subject to EGTBs. But EGTBs are also copied to internal storage.

I prefer the modul mode. I get the necessary data for the next opponent the afternoon before the game. This is all ok for you? IMO all this would violate the eternal FIDE rules of chess. But computers use all that and you call it perfectly normal internal storage, right?

Therefore I would propose a true robot player for tournaments like CCT. Computers who only use selfdiscovered lines. Without any influence of programmers. He will program the feature as such that of the lines finding. The robot remains the same for 6 months. Of course it can itself improve his play after own analyses before and after tournament games. In these 6 months the different players (C) live in neutral zones outside the realm of the programmers. Then the FIDE rule cheating would stop. And that of the ELO number hystery.

All just IMO, 100x excuses.

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use. My question was, it's not really difficult for you to answer, if this is ok for you. Do you think that I then play according to the rules. Please let your distortions, I didnt change the subject but added the endgame topic to my earlier argument to give it some spice. Show me your standpoint, please. I almost smell it that you begin to talk about extra rights you want to have for the poorly playing chess computers. They are allowed to use all the storages but not a human. I mean CC people steal from humans so I can steal from computer analyses, no? Of course during a normal game after the FIDE rules, right? All implantated by surgery. All legal.

Fine. Limit the storage. I have seen estimates giving humans about 2 gigabytes of memory, although it is organized a bit differently. I'll happily play with just 2 gigs of memory. I can fit my under 2 megs of opening data in there, plus the entire chess program, etc. I don't use EGTBs anyway so that is a moot point.

[Terry McCracken]

You haven't addressed my points at all, but instead repeated your own points, which my points have already addressed. I refuted your GM/patzer argument by showing that patzer play is legal chess. I refuted your cheating argument by the definition of respective internal storage media of humans and computers.

Any player, human or mechanical, which accesses its own internal storage is not cheating.

Indeed I have addressed it. Hint: with my scenario.

My points address your scenario.

But Matt, do you really plan to enter this here and then talking with a deeply rooted disorder? What do you expect here?

Ok, just kidding. Since you have abstained from any insults I will answer you of course. You say internal storage. Do you really mean it? Then human players play with implantated chips for endgame tablebases.

Oh, so you concede the point on openings, since you're changing the subject to EGTBs. But EGTBs are also copied to internal storage.

I prefer the modul mode. I get the necessary data for the next opponent the afternoon before the game. This is all ok for you? IMO all this would violate the eternal FIDE rules of chess. But computers use all that and you call it perfectly normal internal storage, right?

Therefore I would propose a true robot player for tournaments like CCT. Computers who only use selfdiscovered lines. Without any influence of programmers. He will program the feature as such that of the lines finding. The robot remains the same for 6 months. Of course it can itself improve his play after own analyses before and after tournament games. In these 6 months the different players (C) live in neutral zones outside the realm of the programmers. Then the FIDE rule cheating would stop. And that of the ELO number hystery.

All just IMO, 100x excuses.

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use. My question was, it's not really difficult for you to answer, if this is ok for you. Do you think that I then play according to the rules. Please let your distortions, I didnt change the subject but added the endgame topic to my earlier argument to give it some spice. Show me your standpoint, please. I almost smell it that you begin to talk about extra rights you want to have for the poorly playing chess computers. They are allowed to use all the storages but not a human. I mean CC people steal from humans so I can steal from computer analyses, no? Of course during a normal game after the FIDE rules, right? All implantated by surgery. All legal.

Fine. Limit the storage. I have seen estimates giving humans about 2 gigabytes of memory, although it is organized a bit differently. I'll happily play with just 2 gigs of memory. I can fit my under 2 megs of opening data in there, plus the entire chess program, etc. I don't use EGTBs anyway so that is a moot point.

I'm coming into this not knowing what has been said throughout this thread, but humans have only 2 gigs of memory????

I think we store more a lot more at least many terabytes of memory although not efficently.

I've processed over many many terabytes of data in my lifetime, maybe even a petabyte but of course I can't use this vast amout of memory to my advantage.

Is that your point?

[Rolf]

I think we store more a lot more at least many terabytes of memory although not efficently.

I've processed over many many terabytes of data in my lifetime, maybe even a petabyte but of course I can't use this vast amout of memory to my advantage.

Is that your point?

These numbers symbolize the difference between knowing about something and understanding it plus being able to use it in practice.

Two statements about chess and computerchess:

Since you mostly win in chess through mistakes by your weaker opponents the delusion exists, on all different levels, that you are a real master. This is why chess conteins so many imposters and nutcases, meant without anger or contempt.

The classical computerchess up to now is basically a whole delusion because it takes into its entities what normally is absolutely forbidden and beneath contempt in classical human chess. It's real cheating to speak it out in all clarity. However no problem, if you let them play against each other, those entities. That is an interesting variantion of chess. However against human players the impostering means that a machine understands what it only knows through mere implementation that could be done in a single day. There is no maturing, there is only the instant mastership in simulating a chess-like output. But in real it's all taken from man-made input by the operators, book authors and programmers.

Nobody would plan to let a human athlete run against a car. Only in chess there are engineers who do what is certainly possible to do, but therefore it doesnt make sense yet.

I dont want to be misunderstood. Computerchess is changing the world of classical chess because the players have a magnificent training tool insofar it is calculator and memory base all together. But I know of no example where a player became GM on the basis of such computer training alone.

To change mere knowledge into mastership of playing, this affords the help of a human trainer who must also understand the processes of human learning, while it's not necessary that he's a champion player himself.

[Uri Blass]

You haven't addressed my points at all, but instead repeated your own points, which my points have already addressed. I refuted your GM/patzer argument by showing that patzer play is legal chess. I refuted your cheating argument by the definition of respective internal storage media of humans and computers.

Any player, human or mechanical, which accesses its own internal storage is not cheating.

Indeed I have addressed it. Hint: with my scenario.

My points address your scenario.

But Matt, do you really plan to enter this here and then talking with a deeply rooted disorder? What do you expect here?

Ok, just kidding. Since you have abstained from any insults I will answer you of course. You say internal storage. Do you really mean it? Then human players play with implantated chips for endgame tablebases.

Oh, so you concede the point on openings, since you're changing the subject to EGTBs. But EGTBs are also copied to internal storage.

I prefer the modul mode. I get the necessary data for the next opponent the afternoon before the game. This is all ok for you? IMO all this would violate the eternal FIDE rules of chess. But computers use all that and you call it perfectly normal internal storage, right?

Therefore I would propose a true robot player for tournaments like CCT. Computers who only use selfdiscovered lines. Without any influence of programmers. He will program the feature as such that of the lines finding. The robot remains the same for 6 months. Of course it can itself improve his play after own analyses before and after tournament games. In these 6 months the different players (C) live in neutral zones outside the realm of the programmers. Then the FIDE rule cheating would stop. And that of the ELO number hystery.

All just IMO, 100x excuses.

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use. My question was, it's not really difficult for you to answer, if this is ok for you. Do you think that I then play according to the rules. Please let your distortions, I didnt change the subject but added the endgame topic to my earlier argument to give it some spice. Show me your standpoint, please. I almost smell it that you begin to talk about extra rights you want to have for the poorly playing chess computers. They are allowed to use all the storages but not a human. I mean CC people steal from humans so I can steal from computer analyses, no? Of course during a normal game after the FIDE rules, right? All implantated by surgery. All legal.

Fine. Limit the storage. I have seen estimates giving humans about 2 gigabytes of memory, although it is organized a bit differently. I'll happily play with just 2 gigs of memory. I can fit my under 2 megs of opening data in there, plus the entire chess program, etc. I don't use EGTBs anyway so that is a moot point.

I'm coming into this not knowing what has been said throughout this thread, but humans have only 2 gigs of memory????

I think we store more a lot more at least many terabytes of memory although not efficently.

I've processed over many many terabytes of data in my lifetime, maybe even a petabyte but of course I can't use this vast amout of memory to my advantage.

Is that your point?

I think that the main advantage of computers is speed and not memory.
Give computers hardware that is million times slower then the hardware of today so they can search only few nodes per seconds and I think that they will have rating below 2000 under the fide rules regardless of the opening book.

give rybka no opening book and you can expect her to beat GM's at 120/40 time control.

Edit:Memory is also an advantage but I think that the non constant memory is the real advantage.

computers can use hash with many millions of positions.
Humans simply cannot remember millions of positions and the problem is not time.

Even if you give humans a full year to think about a position with no computer help they will be unable to remember a tree of millions positions.

one year is cleary enough to generate tree of millions positions if you generate 10,000 new positions in the tree every day.

I believe that more than 99.9% of the humans are even unable to remember a tree of 1000 positions that they can generate in one hour but I guess that there are some people with exceptional memory who can do it but I guess that even they cannot remember a tree of 3,650,000 positions that they generate in one year(assuming they think 10 hours every day)

Uri

[bhlangonijr]

I think that the main advantage of computers is speed and not memory.
Give computers hardware that is million times slower then the hardware of today so they can search only few nodes per seconds and I think that they will have rating below 2000 under the fide rules regardless of the opening book.

give rybka no opening book and you can expect her to beat GM's at 120/40 time control.

Edit:Memory is also an advantage but I think that the non constant memory is the real advantage.

computers can use hash with many millions of positions.
Humans simply cannot remember millions of positions and the problem is not time.

Even if you give humans a full year to think about a position with no computer help they will be unable to remember a tree of millions positions.

one year is cleary enough to generate tree of millions positions if you generate 10,000 new positions in the tree every day.

I believe that more than 99.9% of the humans are even unable to remember a tree of 1000 positions that they can generate in one hour but I guess that there are some people with exceptional memory who can do it but I guess that even they cannot remember a tree of 3,650,000 positions that they generate in one year(assuming they think 10 hours every day)

Uri

Just to mention computers are better playing tactically and humans are better playing positionally. The human brain is better to recognize patterns and generalize knowledge and it compensate the relative slow speed of processing by having a much better parallelization. The human capacity to search trees doesn't give any hint about how good it can be playing chess.

[bob]

You haven't addressed my points at all, but instead repeated your own points, which my points have already addressed. I refuted your GM/patzer argument by showing that patzer play is legal chess. I refuted your cheating argument by the definition of respective internal storage media of humans and computers.

Any player, human or mechanical, which accesses its own internal storage is not cheating.

Indeed I have addressed it. Hint: with my scenario.

My points address your scenario.

But Matt, do you really plan to enter this here and then talking with a deeply rooted disorder? What do you expect here?

Ok, just kidding. Since you have abstained from any insults I will answer you of course. You say internal storage. Do you really mean it? Then human players play with implantated chips for endgame tablebases.

Oh, so you concede the point on openings, since you're changing the subject to EGTBs. But EGTBs are also copied to internal storage.

I prefer the modul mode. I get the necessary data for the next opponent the afternoon before the game. This is all ok for you? IMO all this would violate the eternal FIDE rules of chess. But computers use all that and you call it perfectly normal internal storage, right?

Therefore I would propose a true robot player for tournaments like CCT. Computers who only use selfdiscovered lines. Without any influence of programmers. He will program the feature as such that of the lines finding. The robot remains the same for 6 months. Of course it can itself improve his play after own analyses before and after tournament games. In these 6 months the different players (C) live in neutral zones outside the realm of the programmers. Then the FIDE rule cheating would stop. And that of the ELO number hystery.

All just IMO, 100x excuses.

Computers have self-discovered all the endings in EGTBs. And just like humans, they share their knowledge with other computer players by publishing their findings. All programs using those findings (EGTB) have copied them to their internal storage, just like they do with opening books, just like humans learn openings and endings and store the shared knowledge internally to themselves.

All your arguments have now been addressed.

This is not what I wanted to say. I said that all that I will now also do as a human player. With chips and all I use the same storages the computers allegedly are allowed to use. My question was, it's not really difficult for you to answer, if this is ok for you. Do you think that I then play according to the rules. Please let your distortions, I didnt change the subject but added the endgame topic to my earlier argument to give it some spice. Show me your standpoint, please. I almost smell it that you begin to talk about extra rights you want to have for the poorly playing chess computers. They are allowed to use all the storages but not a human. I mean CC people steal from humans so I can steal from computer analyses, no? Of course during a normal game after the FIDE rules, right? All implantated by surgery. All legal.

Fine. Limit the storage. I have seen estimates giving humans about 2 gigabytes of memory, although it is organized a bit differently. I'll happily play with just 2 gigs of memory. I can fit my under 2 megs of opening data in there, plus the entire chess program, etc. I don't use EGTBs anyway so that is a moot point.

I'm coming into this not knowing what has been said throughout this thread, but humans have only 2 gigs of memory????

I think we store more a lot more at least many terabytes of memory although not efficently.

I've processed over many many terabytes of data in my lifetime, maybe even a petabyte but of course I can't use this vast amout of memory to my advantage.

Is that your point?

Not really. I have seen this "2 gigs" thing more than once. Who knows how that was arrived at since one can't count DRAM chips.

[Terry McCracken]

I think we store more a lot more at least many terabytes of memory although not efficently.

I've processed over many many terabytes of data in my lifetime, maybe even a petabyte but of course I can't use this vast amout of memory to my advantage.

Is that your point?

These numbers symbolize the difference between knowing about something and understanding it plus being able to use it in practice.

Two statements about chess and computerchess:

Since you mostly win in chess through mistakes by your weaker opponents the delusion exists, on all different levels, that you are a real master. This is why chess conteins so many imposters and nutcases, meant without anger or contempt.

I don't want your autobiography Rolf...

[Rolf]

Just to mention computers are better playing tactically and humans are better playing positionally. The human brain is better to recognize patterns and generalize knowledge and it compensate the relative slow speed of processing by having a much better parallelization. The human capacity to search trees doesn't give any hint about how good it can be playing chess.

Absolutely wrong in all points.

The difference between man and machine isnt tactical vs positional or better or worse pattern recognition.

It's absolute nonsense that a computer shouldnt be able to recognize patterns. Of course it can. But this isnt the point what is more difficult or even impossible for a computer. I wont tell people who call me idiot. I enjoy seeing them fail, honestly.