ICC for CCT11

[Uri Blass]

I think that the right thing is to keep your promise.
You can later refuse to help the person who accused you of cheating in case that he asks you for another help.

You can also go to the court against the same person and sue him for lies
but you need to keep the promise that you made in the past.

Uri

[Rolf]

I think that the right thing is to keep your promise.
You can later refuse to help the person who accused you of cheating in case that he asks you for another help.

You can also go to the court against the same person and sue him for lies
but you need to keep the promise that you made in the past.

Uri

This is all true, Uri, but here we have a different problem, that someone like the most famous computerchess legend, besides others of course, is also unable to grasp. He just cant understand because his whole life and socialisation went into a different direction, one the world has enough of for a longer time already.

Uri, we have the problem of balance between such values like honor, trust, ethos of profession, on the other side of chess and its history, where we have also honor and ethic of the legendary game.

For me science is the most important for mankind. Everything could be fine without the game of chess. But as it is we have chess and specifically educated chessmasters. The talents and performances of the best human players is always living on the slippery slope of genius, circus show and art.

For approximately 4 decades now we have a trend that certain chess ignorants take the game and work out machines and programs which then should compete with the genius of the game. Basically after the motto, what the weakest beginners could never attain, that is now simulated with machines.

From the beginning of computerchess the protagonists misunderstood totally what human chess means. They did never try to create a true robot that could play weak or not chess. From the beginning they cheated the whole antique chess rules. hess always was a game but also art and almost science but always also expression of the players's personality.

It takes a player some ten years to develop real mastership in the game. The misunderstanding of typical machine engineers is that this training is mainly sort of gobbling down the wisdom of the whole chess analyses available. This is the most incorrect assumption for human learning.

Hence these technicians argued that computers could also be "trained" to play chess. Openings etc into ther ROM, a process of some hours or days. And then the RAM that simply - depending of hardware generation - calculates the possible moves, plays like the human players. But no human player plays this way.

Someone like John Nunn, a strong GM, became coollaborator of this nonsense approach. He fell in love with computerchess that could calculate moves that are by definition totally out of reach for even the strongest humans. But although that is a fine training help, this cant be taken as a sort of talent of a singular on itself living chess personality! This is justt a stored telefone number book. It has nothing to do with the historical, classical chess. It's a variation of artificial chess like märchenschach or helpmate and such. The latter is mostly "played" by unsuccessful weaker chess players, seldom true masters, and the best artists in such branches never even spend a minute on the idea tht their passtime could be brought into the classical chess of tournament chess and matches.

Only computerchess persons are addicted to the idea that their technology could prove they they ould "play" better than the best human masters. With the fallacy that this play is based on a violation of all the ethical chess rules. The FIDE has fully understood the point and they forbid that non-chessplayers and technicians appear on tournament stages and pretend that their machines could play better chess than the best masters. Apart of some show events a direct competition between man and machine simply doesnt happen.

That having said it's clear that computerchess as such is still highly interesting because for the training these programs (in special Rybka, created by a true chess IM!) are indispensible helpers. But never in history of this field a machine could play chess without cheating. The cheating results into self-betrayal. In the end the engineer cant seperate his own self of his tool. Visible int speech when the "we" rules, meaning "I and my machine", which is even shortened into "I" which means "the machine and I as its operator"..

Here in this thread we could see again how engineers think about real chess and its masters. The dishonesty of scientists who claim that their field is worthier and more important than the legendary history of classical chess. Here a button pushed, there opening variations added they can create true chess GM with 2880 ELO!!

Here is a moment to think about the meaning of our speech. Nobody in the world of computerchess has ever created a true 2800 Elo super GM! Never! But in the Middle Ages people claimed that they could make gold, that they had found the perpetuum mobile. And millions believed it. Still it was a hoax. So, it's a difficult task to argue on ethical grounds against the million believers and their chief cheaters.

Isnt it a sign, a symbol for you readers, that probably the best chess player who ever created a chess machine, and in his case the very best machine EVER, that he is never present in such debates where things are claimed that are basically stupid and nonsense?

[Rolf]

For those who ask what this DB, Kasparov, IBM, CC, science, ethos, classical chess stuff should have to do with the topic that the actual CCT is played online on ICC, when this is now the almost authentic "play" of machines without any personal human interference/intervention - let me define what a machine in chess should be looking like before we could call it a chess player, that played chess after the rules:

for the friends of computerchess it sounds odd if I define that it's cheating if a machine simply got rammed down its throat the whole data of the history of chess when we all know well that the same machine could never understand the whole details. Technical engineers in computer sciences might say what they want but a true human chessplayer plays the lines he has analysed for years and not lines he has not understood. Because if he would do that he would lose in the longer run against his competitors in human chess.

So, the definition goes like this. Everything what a machine finds out of itself, what is within its radius, its realm, that is allowed to implement. But not something a machine would never even try or plan.

A machine should be a certain physical entity that once connected to energy sources, then is prepared to play chess games. The opponent can push the button of the time schedules. The rest is alone the job of the machine.

A machine should learn by itself, by experience of course, that there exist different opponents who play different styles. All that must be programmed, but it's not allowed to implement for the machine, what it must discover on the job so to speak. Then we have a true chess playing robot.

If he then begins to understand chess he can make progress in higher leagues. But shortly after his birth he cant by no means directly start a match against the World Champion. Should be trivial!

Everything else, the whole practice of implementing this or that detail is fine if it's thought to remain in the artificial world of chess, but a chess playing robot must be differently trained on chess. If this doesnt succeed then it's simply impossible to create a chessplaying robot. Then the tools can still be very valuable for us human players.

In this line of arguments I strongly reject the assumption of a chess machine that has now surpassed the abilities of human chess players. Wrong! Until now it was only shown that with disregarding the rules of chess a complex of tools with the helping hand of a computational engineer can win games against a human player who is bound to respect the FIDE rules!

Friends! If you ever have played a game of chess in your school perhaps you will remember that you would have won many games if a human advisor, at best a GM, would sit next to you and whisper all the best moves. But without you blundered and lost the game. Know what I mean?

In fair competition mode you cant play against a machine. But you can well use the machine like all PC databases and tools to become better in your own play.

What is actually playing on CCT isnt a chess robot but the said "complex" consisting out of encyclopedical tomes and all kind of unallowed support.


I just got the idea of a good comparison. What actually happens in CC is this: the creators of dance choreography sit together in a room and they play their championship but without the dancers. Without dancing at all. But the different steps are analysed b computers and then they are measured on certain parameters. On display we could also see puppets that dance the given choreography.

Who on this world would now reason that this could replace true shows with true human dancers? But on display the choreographic beauty is on a level that authentic human dancers could never reach. Would we then speak of a triumph of the computer displayed dance over the actually leading couples in the sport?

Please think about better ideas to understand why the theory is flawed that sees a machine wise superiority over human records.

[bob]

For those who ask what this DB, Kasparov, IBM, CC, science, ethos, classical chess stuff should have to do with the topic that the actual CCT is played online on ICC, when this is now the almost authentic "play" of machines without any personal human interference/intervention - let me define what a machine in chess should be looking like before we could call it a chess player, that played chess after the rules:

for the friends of computerchess it sounds odd if I define that it's cheating if a machine simply got rammed down its throat the whole data of the history of chess when we all know well that the same machine could never understand the whole details. Technical engineers in computer sciences might say what they want but a true human chessplayer plays the lines he has analysed for years and not lines he has not understood. Because if he would do that he would lose in the longer run against his competitors in human chess.

So, the definition goes like this. Everything what a machine finds out of itself, what is within its radius, its realm, that is allowed to implement. But not something a machine would never even try or plan.

A machine should be a certain physical entity that once connected to energy sources, then is prepared to play chess games. The opponent can push the button of the time schedules. The rest is alone the job of the machine.

A machine should learn by itself, by experience of course, that there exist different opponents who play different styles. All that must be programmed, but it's not allowed to implement for the machine, what it must discover on the job so to speak. Then we have a true chess playing robot.

If he then begins to understand chess he can make progress in higher leagues. But shortly after his birth he cant by no means directly start a match against the World Champion. Should be trivial!

Everything else, the whole practice of implementing this or that detail is fine if it's thought to remain in the artificial world of chess, but a chess playing robot must be differently trained on chess. If this doesnt succeed then it's simply impossible to create a chessplaying robot. Then the tools can still be very valuable for us human players.

In this line of arguments I strongly reject the assumption of a chess machine that has now surpassed the abilities of human chess players. Wrong! Until now it was only shown that with disregarding the rules of chess a complex of tools with the helping hand of a computational engineer can win games against a human player who is bound to respect the FIDE rules!

Friends! If you ever have played a game of chess in your school perhaps you will remember that you would have won many games if a human advisor, at best a GM, would sit next to you and whisper all the best moves. But without you blundered and lost the game. Know what I mean?

In fair competition mode you cant play against a machine. But you can well use the machine like all PC databases and tools to become better in your own play.

What is actually playing on CCT isnt a chess robot but the said "complex" consisting out of encyclopedical tomes and all kind of unallowed support.


I just got the idea of a good comparison. What actually happens in CC is this: the creators of dance choreography sit together in a room and they play their championship but without the dancers. Without dancing at all. But the different steps are analysed b computers and then they are measured on certain parameters. On display we could also see puppets that dance the given choreography.

Who on this world would now reason that this could replace true shows with true human dancers? But on display the choreographic beauty is on a level that authentic human dancers could never reach. Would we then speak of a triumph of the computer displayed dance over the actually leading couples in the sport?

Please think about better ideas to understand why the theory is flawed that sees a machine wise superiority over human records.

If you'd just let your monkeys at your keyboard again, they would produce something that is more informative than the above.

1. computers _do_ play the entire game with _zero_ human assistance. Crafty plays games 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I'm rarely on watching, and there is no way to "assist" it at all.

2. Crafty's opening book is not made up of millions of historical games. And there are programs around that build their own opening books completely from scratch. Something no human GM has _ever_ done. GMs have studied, intently, past opening theory, before they begin to develop their own theory and analysis. Just as computers do.

Computers play perfectly by the FIDE rules of chess. There are some that "cheat" by operator intervention here and there (These are referred to as "cyborgs" on ICC in fact). But most do not.

Your incessant rambling about a topic which you know absolutely nothing about gets old. Very old. If you are so down on "computer chess" why don't you pack up your tent and go back to some of the German fora you have been banned from? All you do here is make noise. Mostly static with no information content. About a topic you don't understand in the first place. And you make this static over and over and over and over... without ever taking the time to learn something new...

[Rolf]

1. computers _do_ play the entire game with _zero_ human assistance. Crafty plays games 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I'm rarely on watching, and there is no way to "assist" it at all.

Where is your problem? It's ok with your Crafty, but it doesnt prove wht you want it to prove. Craft isnt a chessplayer. It's a fully controlled, tuned and protected machine but it has no independance. You show up if the score is going down. Then you exclude opponents etc. Learn to read. I am not against such chess computers. I am against those fantasies about what the machines should be standing for.

2. Crafty's opening book is not made up of millions of historical games. And there are programs around that build their own opening books completely from scratch. Something no human GM has _ever_ done. GMs have studied, intently, past opening theory, before they begin to develop their own theory and analysis. Just as computers do.

This is a fairy tale. But dream on about what humans do in their learning. If you think that they do exactly what computers do or you with your computer, then believe what you want but it's not true because you claim it to be true.

Like in paragraphe one above you just confound independence with a chained automatism, ordered by nobody less than programmer RH.

Computers play perfectly by the FIDE rules of chess. There are some that "cheat" by operator intervention here and there (These are referred to as "cyborgs" on ICC in fact). But most do not.

Your incessant rambling about a topic which you know absolutely nothing about gets old. Very old. If you are so down on "computer chess" why don't you pack up your tent and go back to some of the German fora you have been banned from? All you do here is make noise. Mostly static with no information content. About a topic you don't understand in the first place. And you make this static over and over and over and over... without ever taking the time to learn something new...

As I said without counter argument: computers like your Crafty do NOT play after the FIDE rules. Several rules are violated. The complete design of the typical program complex is flawed.

Dont take me wrong. I use such programs myself for my chess play. Only the claims that this is fair play or is making sense in direct games between the tuned entities and human players, they are all wrong. I equalise my handicap therefore by my own opening repertoire that I let open besides the board. So no problems on this side. Tit for tat.

As to plain lies in your message, meant to personally attack me, I wont reply since they are all without basis. It's all lies. 100%.

Just try to argue without all this aggressivity. Or are you so weak that you must shout insults against me? Let's just show some respect. At home, Bob, you can then explode. Just try to behave here. Thanks.

We are also writing for the young kids. Only they will understand my criticism against the old paradigm. Understanding and then finding new solutions for a true chess robot/player. In the meantime, keep on rocking!

[bob]

1. computers _do_ play the entire game with _zero_ human assistance. Crafty plays games 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I'm rarely on watching, and there is no way to "assist" it at all.

Where is your problem? It's ok with your Crafty, but it doesnt prove wht you want it to prove. Craft isnt a chessplayer. It's a fully controlled, tuned and protected machine but it has no independance. You show up if the score is going down. Then you exclude opponents etc. Learn to read. I am not against such chess computers. I am against those fantasies about what the machines should be standing for.

What do you mean "I exclude players"??? I don't exclude _anybody_. I play machines that are far faster, where I lose over 90% of the games. Again, you produce a lot of noise, but absolutely nothing factual. Crafty is not "fully controlled". It sits there waiting on matches. It makes up its own mind about how much time to use, which openings to use, when to mark an opening as "let's not try this again for a while" and so forth. I don't need to learn to read, I've had that skill for almost 60 years now. You, on the other hand, could use improvement in both reading _and_ writing. And particularly in doing research on a topic before writing (the old proverb "put your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion" comes to mind and would be good advice for you to follow).

2. Crafty's opening book is not made up of millions of historical games. And there are programs around that build their own opening books completely from scratch. Something no human GM has _ever_ done. GMs have studied, intently, past opening theory, before they begin to develop their own theory and analysis. Just as computers do.

This is a fairy tale. But dream on about what humans do in their learning. If you think that they do exactly what computers do or you with your computer, then believe what you want but it's not true because you claim it to be true.

I don't have to "dream" since I actually play chess. And since I have actually studied openings from ECO, MCO, BCO, PCN, I _know_ how humans learn to play openings. What you do is completely irrelevant. What _normal_ humans do is the issue here. And normal humans study opening variations. Study them enough that the critical paths are simply memorized. I haven't played the Fried Liver in 20 years now, but can give you the first 20+ moves instantly. As well as a lot of other "interesting" openings I have used such as the Latvian and so forth. If you don't memorize openings, no wonder you are a patzer. Browne can show you how he remembers entire _games_ at one of his demos. As can Roman, or as Mike Valvo could before his untimely death, etc.

Like in paragraphe one above you just confound independence with a chained automatism, ordered by nobody less than programmer RH.

Ridiculous argument. One could turn that around to say that _you_ are "chained automatism, ordered by nobody less than whatever supreme being you believe in in your religion." I've never claimed Crafty is a "free-willed human". But it is also not a static automaton, in that it modifies its behaviour as the games are played. So it evolves in a sense. In fact, you ought to try a little evolving yourself, would help a lot.

Computers play perfectly by the FIDE rules of chess. There are some that "cheat" by operator intervention here and there (These are referred to as "cyborgs" on ICC in fact). But most do not.

Your incessant rambling about a topic which you know absolutely nothing about gets old. Very old. If you are so down on "computer chess" why don't you pack up your tent and go back to some of the German fora you have been banned from? All you do here is make noise. Mostly static with no information content. About a topic you don't understand in the first place. And you make this static over and over and over and over... without ever taking the time to learn something new...

As I said without counter argument: computers like your Crafty do NOT play after the FIDE rules. Several rules are violated. The complete design of the typical program complex is flawed.

Please feel free to quote _any_ FIDE rule of chess that Crafty violates. And we can discuss that point clearly. Right now this is just static. I have a FIDE book here so please quote specific rule, not "it just doesn't follow the rules". If you don't have a copy, you can go to the FIDE web site which has an only copy available.

Dont take me wrong. I use such programs myself for my chess play. Only the claims that this is fair play or is making sense in direct games between the tuned entities and human players, they are all wrong. I equalise my handicap therefore by my own opening repertoire that I let open besides the board. So no problems on this side. Tit for tat.

As to plain lies in your message, meant to personally attack me, I wont reply since they are all without basis. It's all lies. 100%.

Just try to argue without all this aggressivity. Or are you so weak that you must shout insults against me? Let's just show some respect. At home, Bob, you can then explode. Just try to behave here. Thanks.

We are also writing for the young kids. Only they will understand my criticism against the old paradigm. Understanding and then finding new solutions for a true chess robot/player. In the meantime, keep on rocking!

Being able to spell paradigm doesn't imply understanding, as is _clearly_ the case in your post.

[Rolf]

First of all, sincere condolences for the late Valvo. I never before heard about this loss for the computerchess as such.

Your memory however sucks again. You yourself have informed me how you ban players who you suspect to unfairly exploit weaknesses of your machine.

Finally. What you recall in 20 moves of the Fred Liver, this is absolutely worthless stuff. No true GM in his early steps just memorizes lines. He's analysing his own games. The analysing is the most important for future GM. Only patzers memorize lines. If Roman or others told you the contrary they lied to you or they told you what you wanted to hear. Believe a good old friend. Peace.

[bob]

First of all, sincere condolences for the late Valvo. I never before heard about this loss for the computerchess as such.

Your memory however sucks again. You yourself have informed me how you ban players who you suspect to unfairly exploit weaknesses of your machine.

Sorry, but you will _never_ find such a quote from me. I have been quite specific in my approach to this problem, dating back to two particular cases.

(1) The "mercilous" player that used various variations of the Trojan Horse Attack to beat Crafty and other programs. Most +noplayed him. I fixed Crafty's eval so that this attack would not work. This is well-documented in fact. And the code is still in Crafty should someone try to resurrect this again.

(2) the "play fast" players that try to lock the position and move quickly and run the opponents out of time. I have code for that in Crafty as well.

So where you get this noplay stuff is beyond me, as it definitely didn't come from me. The only (very few) people I have noplayed are those that violate some specific requirements I have in Crafty's finger notes, such as jumping in and playing when crafty is playing an extended series of games against a GM.

Finally. What you recall in 20 moves of the Fred Liver, this is absolutely worthless stuff. No true GM in his early steps just memorizes lines. He's analysing his own games. The analysing is the most important for future GM. Only patzers memorize lines. If Roman or others told you the contrary they lied to you or they told you what you wanted to hear. Believe a good old friend. Peace.

No, you just don't read. "we" remember variations. We also study them and remember the analysis as well. So that when you play a known blunder, I immediately recognize it as such, and whether or not I have the correct reply memorized is unimportant. Just knowing that you played a weak move is enough for me, as now I can look to see what is wrong with it and start to "think".

People _do_ remember variations. Good chess players certainly do. Whether you do or not I really don't care.

[adams161]

I havent read through the whole thread yet but i wanted to comment on premove on icc. If you pay you can of course use any interface. last i checked, thief, at www.thief-interface.com , works on icc. I believe in thief you can premove multiple premoves. Icc isnt just dasher, it's only dasher if you are on a trial.

Mike

[bob]

I havent read through the whole thread yet but i wanted to comment on premove on icc. If you pay you can of course use any interface. last i checked, thief, at www.thief-interface.com , works on icc. I believe in thief you can premove multiple premoves. Icc isnt just dasher, it's only dasher if you are on a trial.

Mike

Also as Lance pointed out, pre-move is not a server issue, it is a client issue.