The problem of opening theory in computer chess

[hgm]

Gothic Chess, and all the other Capablanca Chess variants, are all
extremely tactical games in that there are several super-knights on
the board. There are double-threats and forks everywhere. So these
variants are more "mad" than Mad Queen Chess (orthochess).

You highly exaggerate. People will last a lot longer than 7 moves, even against a strong computer opponent. The new pieces are nor more dangerous than an ortodox Queen. It is very easy to give forks, for sure, but these forks are not as dangerous as Knight forks, because the piece giving them is so very valuable. So as long as your pieces are defended, you can afford to ignore the forks.

The larger board spreads out the strength of the pieces enough for the tactics to remain manageable.The problem you sketch does occur in Superchess, where the three superpieces from Capabana Chess do occur together with Amazon on an 8x8 board.

[Rolf]

The problem of opening theory in computer chess. What's the point in
measuring the opening book knowledge when arranging matches between
chess programs? By example, Deep Blue never got out of the opening
book before it was practically over in the final game against
Kasparov. Would the chess public stand up and applause if a human
player sat with an opening book in his lap, replicating the moves in
the book, and winning against the world champion? Of course not, they
would boo at him. I realize, of course, that it is a difficult
question, not the least because human players can play from memory as
well, although not nearly as good. Nevertheless, it is high time that
this practice is questioned in computer chess, at least in matches
between chess programs.

I have a suggestion that could measure also the opening understanding
in chess programs. Today, a program needs, foremostly, to have general
middlegame and endgame knowledge about stratagems, while the opening
can be dealt with by cheating, namely by reading directly from the
book. My proposal, which implies that the standard array can be
rearranged, does not involve randomization, but the players must take
decisions from the beginning, using a method of relocation.

Actually chess folks have already answered the challenge by the computerchess people (with their violation of FIDE laws of human chess or the cheating or how you would call it) with a simple refusal of all sort of computer programs in ordinary chess tournaments.

But on the other side ordinary chess people are not morally better therefore than computerchess freaks. Look how players use clear computerchess machine lines in their own match preparation against other human opponents. Until now this wasnt called cheating, perhaps with the thought that all players could replay their machines' moves.

Anyway, for that reason I have lost my good argument directed towards the computerchess folks, namely that they should restrict themselves to pure and authentic machine moves in the openings, for all machines could also understand, and refused to use man-made theory that no machine could understand and that a machine could only play with a sort of wheel chair costruction of book preparation, because otherwise the machine would lose such 'good' lines.

As a psychologist I must admit that human nature doesnt look well in both fields of chess. People like to gample and cheat, as a matter of fact. Of course computerchess originally was part of science, what leaves a minimum of hope that cheating could be tamed a bit. IMO the future in human chess will be dominated by even more cheating with e.g. the implementation of computerchips into the human players.

Your interesting idea of deplaced chess pieces shouldnt be adopted because in chess as a game for masses the cheating factor is less important. Chess is played as the game for itself without superior reasons.

Therefore chess should be put back to normal and be re-nationalized with Germans playing in Germany and not like today where the best Russians play in the German or French League while the weaker best Germans play in Italy or Austria.

[MatsW]

Not correct. In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800. However, this is not prohibited in ICCF, so it's
not regarded as cheating. Even the top GM's are pressured to use Rybka 3
more and more. Over at chessgames.com during "rest of the world"
games, the past few GM's have been heavily supplementing their moves
with Rybka 3 analysis.

It is a common argument that the general café chessplayer isn't
affected by this development. However, there are hardly any café
chessplayers anymore. You can't play the King's gambit down on the
club, because your 1800-rated opponent for the next round will have
made preparations with his advanced database. So you are pressured to
play the long variants in Ruy Lopez.

Paradoxically, although opening knowledge is growing, playable theory
is continually narrowing down. In the beginning of the 20th century
the practicable opening tree constituted of an enormous shrubbery with
short branches in every possible direction. Nowadays, practicable
opening theory, among professionals, is like a long tall and narrow
tree, with few but very long branches. However, this also affects
amateur players. In email/correspondence chess the problem is
ubiquitous.
/Mats

[bob]

The problem of opening theory in computer chess. What's the point in
measuring the opening book knowledge when arranging matches between
chess programs? By example, Deep Blue never got out of the opening
book before it was practically over in the final game against
Kasparov. Would the chess public stand up and applause if a human
player sat with an opening book in his lap, replicating the moves in
the book, and winning against the world champion? Of course not, they
would boo at him. I realize, of course, that it is a difficult
question, not the least because human players can play from memory as
well, although not nearly as good. Nevertheless, it is high time that
this practice is questioned in computer chess, at least in matches
between chess programs.

Most of us greatly enjoyed our break from this kind of nonsensical post. You apparently can't write a single post without tossing an insult at Deep Blue. Deep blue. If my memory is correct, and this can be checked by looking at the DB log for game 6 for anyone interested, they were out of book around move 10. The game went to move 20 or something, The game was not "practically over" at that point.

I have seen GM players play 30 moves before they stop to think in a game. Do they cheat?

I have a suggestion that could measure also the opening understanding
in chess programs. Today, a program needs, foremostly, to have general
middlegame and endgame knowledge about stratagems, while the opening
can be dealt with by cheating, namely by reading directly from the
book. My proposal, which implies that the standard array can be
rearranged, does not involve randomization, but the players must take
decisions from the beginning, using a method of relocation.

my program can't read a chess book. It can read in lots of games, play through them, look at the results, try them in games and then "learn" whether the opening was good or bad, and such. Wait, that sounds like exactly what I used to do when I played actively in tournaments. So forget that...

Actually chess folks have already answered the challenge by the computerchess people (with their violation of FIDE laws of human chess or the cheating or how you would call it) with a simple refusal of all sort of computer programs in ordinary chess tournaments.

Shows ignorance of what is going on. I've played a computer in many human events. The "book" is not the issue. The strength of the computer is the problem. If FIDE were to offer me a chance to play in FIDE events at no cost, if I used no opening book other than that which the program could develop solely by playing games and remembering results, I'd take 'em up on it. But it isn't going to happen, because the book is not the problem.

But on the other side ordinary chess people are not morally better therefore than computerchess freaks. Look how players use clear computerchess machine lines in their own match preparation against other human opponents. Until now this wasnt called cheating, perhaps with the thought that all players could replay their machines' moves.

Anyway, for that reason I have lost my good argument directed towards the computerchess folks, namely that they should restrict themselves to pure and authentic machine moves in the openings, for all machines could also understand, and refused to use man-made theory that no machine could understand and that a machine could only play with a sort of wheel chair costruction of book preparation, because otherwise the machine would lose such 'good' lines.

As a psychologist I must admit that human nature doesnt look well in both fields of chess. People like to gample and cheat, as a matter of fact. Of course computerchess originally was part of science, what leaves a minimum of hope that cheating could be tamed a bit. IMO the future in human chess will be dominated by even more cheating with e.g. the implementation of computerchips into the human players.

Your interesting idea of deplaced chess pieces shouldnt be adopted because in chess as a game for masses the cheating factor is less important. Chess is played as the game for itself without superior reasons.

Therefore chess should be put back to normal and be re-nationalized with Germans playing in Germany and not like today where the best Russians play in the German or French League while the weaker best Germans play in Italy or Austria.

[MatsW]

Robert, I did not "insult" Deep Blue. One can't insult a computer. I am educated in computer science myself, and I have been very interested in opening studies. I try to address issues concerning creativity in chess, and how to strengten this aspect in view of the general problem of computerization. It is problematic.

Facts are, in the final game against Deep Blue, Kasparov made his error already in the seventh move: 7...h6?? Deep Blue did not think, but sacrificed his knight on e6 according to the book. Game over!

Then you make quotes which are not from me.
/Mats

[Rolf]

Not correct. In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800. However, this is not prohibited in ICCF, so it's
not regarded as cheating. Even the top GM's are pressured to use Rybka 3
more and more. Over at chessgames.com during "rest of the world"
games, the past few GM's have been heavily supplementing their moves
with Rybka 3 analysis.

It is a common argument that the general café chessplayer isn't
affected by this development. However, there are hardly any café
chessplayers anymore. You can't play the King's gambit down on the
club, because your 1800-rated opponent for the next round will have
made preparations with his advanced database. So you are pressured to
play the long variants in Ruy Lopez.

Paradoxically, although opening knowledge is growing, playable theory
is continually narrowing down. In the beginning of the 20th century
the practicable opening tree constituted of an enormous shrubbery with
short branches in every possible direction. Nowadays, practicable
opening theory, among professionals, is like a long tall and narrow
tree, with few but very long branches. However, this also affects
amateur players. In email/correspondence chess the problem is
ubiquitous.
/Mats

Here I agree with what you say. Cheating in corr chess is inevitable. Look, it's IMO human nature to buy or cheat for a sort of title or status, that certain uninformed people then believe as a matter of fact.

Students cheat with internet copy&paste tech, corr players cheat with computer aid.

There is a strange reason for most of this. The culprit forgets or did never know, that there is a basic difference between your true strength on the basis of what you are able to find out on your own AND then what you easily understand AFTER you saw parts of the solution of its whole content. The moment you saw it you imagine that you already knew it before because it looks so easy and almost trivial. Since you forget about the principal difficulty in a true test, you quickly identify your cheated status with the authentic strength, but it's all a delusion.

What you say about corr players always reminds me of a player whom I'd knowwn as a fifth class player years ago who then became a corr GM (!!). I leave out more details to protect his identity. But this is the only clear case I know, so that I cannot generalize. I even know that some experts doubt that you could become ordinary corr GM alone with computer assistance. People quote veritable Wch in corr who pretends that he doesnt need computer aid. Implying that his strength is based on a true genius in chess talents. IMO this is wrong at least after the appearance of RYBKA.

Certainly it's impossible to become corr GM only with machine cheating. Simply because your opponent can use machines as well.

IMO and after my experiences in my chess youth in clubs corr players as such are cheating. They ran around with key positions and then asked better players for details. NB that the corr players never came out of the leading teams in a club. Whereas the advisors came out of the top ranked players. That was 20 years before computerchess in clubs. The general "asking" addiction surely wasnt suddenly changed or left for good after the players could buy all the machines and programs.
It made cheating much easier.

I'd like to add a different explanation for the whole topic. In many sports you can win ranks or prizes if most of the stronger competitors arent participating. So that a place or a rank is very relative. the ordinary patzer can win the championship in his family or a street. Better chess players get the money from Opens only if they watch who is participating or who could help out on a nationality base (remember the so called Bobby Fischer accusation against drawing Soviets masters). Years ago I got informations about players on their title hunt who just had to choose the right tournament and then had to pay already GM title holders who attended the event without the chance on the first money places. Of course that led to an inflation of title holders. Main reason for that cheat is the practice that title holders get free hotel & meal.

[bob]

Robert, I did not "insult" Deep Blue. One can't insult a computer. I am educated in computer science myself, and I have been very interested in opening studies. I try to address issues concerning creativity in chess, and how to strengten this aspect in view of the general problem of computerization. It is problematic.

Facts are, in the final game against Deep Blue, Kasparov made his error already in the seventh move: 7...h6?? Deep Blue did not think, but sacrificed his knight on e6 according to the book. Game over!

Then you make quotes which are not from me.
/Mats

If you are educated in computer science, you ought to be able to see that _my_ post was a response to Rolf. It really isn't that hard to follow a thread and see who is replying to who. I even quoted _his_ comments and replied to them.

So unless you are "Rolf in disguise" you are way off base...

[Rolf]

Robert, I did not "insult" Deep Blue. One can't insult a computer. I am educated in computer science myself, and I have been very interested in opening studies. I try to address issues concerning creativity in chess, and how to strengten this aspect in view of the general problem of computerization. It is problematic.

Facts are, in the final game against Deep Blue, Kasparov made his error already in the seventh move: 7...h6?? Deep Blue did not think, but sacrificed his knight on e6 according to the book. Game over!

Then you make quotes which are not from me.
/Mats

If you are educated in computer science, you ought to be able to see that _my_ post was a response to Rolf. It really isn't that hard to follow a thread and see who is replying to who. I even quoted _his_ comments and replied to them.

So unless you are "Rolf in disguise" you are way off base...

Excuse me, Bob, but when could you begin to admit if your were mistaken? You are caught in the act of replying - provenly ! - to Mats and now you claim having responded to Rolf which is provenly WRONG!

Here is the decisive quote and please respect that Rolf didnt comment or write about Deep Blue at all! So, by consequence and simple logic you spoled it. Mats spoke about DB, not Rolf! And since you accused the one who had commented on DB, you can only have meant Mats, not Rolf.

Here is the proof:

QUOTE

Rolf wrote:
MatsW wrote:
The problem of opening theory in computer chess. What's the point in
measuring the opening book knowledge when arranging matches between
chess programs? By example, Deep Blue never got out of the opening
book before it was practically over in the final game against
Kasparov. Would the chess public stand up and applause if a human
player sat with an opening book in his lap, replicating the moves in
the book, and winning against the world champion? Of course not, they
would boo at him. I realize, of course, that it is a difficult
question, not the least because human players can play from memory as
well, although not nearly as good. Nevertheless, it is high time that
this practice is questioned in computer chess, at least in matches
between chess programs.

[now here is the direct judgement of R. Hyatt:]
Most of us greatly enjoyed our break from this kind of nonsensical post. You apparently can't write a single post without tossing an insult at Deep Blue. Deep blue. If my memory is correct, and this can be checked by looking at the DB log for game 6 for anyone interested, they were out of book around move 10. The game went to move 20 or something, The game was not "practically over" at that point.

I have seen GM players play 30 moves before they stop to think in a game. Do they cheat?

QUOTE END


Moral:

You shouldnt put yourself on such a highly patronizing false horse and insult e.g. Rolf if Mats has written what you then commented on. Thanks, Bob.

Now show us the next shot from the hip...

[Graham Banks]

One day we could perfectly have an engine who is the best in the world because it has found a way to always win playing 1.f4 while its result are poor with 1.e4 or 1.d4. As it may choose to allways play 1.f4 it will win every championship.

The engine can only play what is programmed into it, so it is not effectively choosing to play openings as humans do (not yet anyway).

Cheers,
Graham.

[Graham Banks]

In email/correspondence chess, cheating is widespread. In
ICCF the common patzer uses multi-core Rybka software and can hold his
own against title players, acquiring a rating of 2400, although he is
really worth 1800.

It is wrong to assume that all those who win correspondence titles have used software to help them though.
When I won my national correspondence title back in 94/95, I never used the assistance of chess engines at all, not even for blunder checking. However, because I was only 1900-2000 elo over the board and I had always had a strong interest in computer chess, you can guess the rumours and insinuations, and these were quite hurtful to me considering the immense amount of time and effort I'd put in.