Go back
The takeback rule proposition

The takeback rule proposition

Only Chess

S

Domincan Republic

Joined
19 Apr 06
Moves
4546
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

I was reading an article where it sugested to give a tekeback oportunity to a human player vs a computer, since the computer can not make a human mistake this would be just fair to my thinking, if kramnik had this he would have drawn game 2 of the match since it was a clear mistake.

What is your oppinion about this, should it be considered for the next match?

A

Joined
28 Nov 06
Moves
4374
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

I can't say that I agree. For instance: a Class C player meets a master in the open section of a tournament. Should the C player be given odds, or a takeback? I don't think so. It cheapens the game. If you can't win by your own methods, then your methods need work.

z

Joined
06 Jul 06
Moves
8061
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Superman
I was reading an article where it sugested to give a tekeback oportunity to a human player vs a computer, since the computer can not make a human mistake this would be just fair to my thinking, if kramnik had this he would have drawn game 2 of the match since it was a clear mistake.

What is your oppinion about this, should it be considered for the next match?
to me it wouldnt be a good idea.
BTW : Human vs computers ?
chess programs are better than us ...

S

Domincan Republic

Joined
19 Apr 06
Moves
4546
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zintieriv
to me it wouldnt be a good idea.
BTW : Human vs computers ?
chess programs are better than us ...
I think it is not saying that PCs are better, compare it to a simple calculating machine, of course it is better than us calculating but you cant say it in that way.

Other thing is that computers don`t get tired, humans do.

briancron
nunquam perdo

Washington, DC

Joined
29 Aug 02
Moves
5134
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zintieriv
to me it wouldnt be a good idea.
BTW : Human vs computers ?
chess programs are better than us ...
I agree.

We don't need any more publicity stunts with the WC against a computer.

Proof that the computer is better is that every book and article about chess always defer to the almighty Fritz

P
Mystic Meg

tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4

Joined
27 Mar 03
Moves
17242
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Superman
I was reading an article where it sugested to give a tekeback oportunity to a human player vs a computer, since the computer can not make a human mistake this would be just fair to my thinking, if kramnik had this he would have drawn game 2 of the match since it was a clear mistake.

What is your oppinion about this, should it be considered for the next match?
The real superman would circle the Earth at super-speeds to take a move back.

P-

G

Joined
31 Dec 06
Moves
3367
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

If I could take back my bad moves I'd win a lot more games.

S

Canukistan

Joined
04 May 04
Moves
6457
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Even if it were allowed, I don't think anyone with a lick of pride would use it. However, I do think the computers should be restricted more than in the Fritz vs. Kramnik match. In a real tournament between humans, players aren't allowed to refer to books or databases- they have to go from their own memory. It's harder to distinguish what's what with computers since their memory may contain all this material. One simple step would be to not allow the computer to use endgame tablebases. I don't think of this as handicapping the computer so much as making things fair - the human player can't refer to them. I'm not a software engineer, but I think a further step might be to have a set limit to the amount of reference data a computer "player" is allowed to use - i.e. so many megabytes of data the designers must decide how to distribute between the opening book, particular endgame positions etc. This isn't just to keep things fair for human-computer matches, but should also help keep computer-computer competion about a struggle between the "intelegence" of these ai creations.

S

Domincan Republic

Joined
19 Apr 06
Moves
4546
Clock
02 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Skorj
Even if it were allowed, I don't think anyone with a lick of pride would use it. However, I do think the computers should be restricted more than in the Fritz vs. Kramnik match. In a real tournament between humans, players aren't allowed to refer to books or databases- they have to go from their own memory. It's harder to distinguish what's what with computers ...[text shortened]... computer competion about a struggle between the "intelegence" of these ai creations.
I think it is a good point what you say, it is not really intelligence playing but searching a database.

p

Joined
05 Jun 06
Moves
9180
Clock
03 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Skorj
Even if it were allowed, I don't think anyone with a lick of pride would use it. However, I do think the computers should be restricted more than in the Fritz vs. Kramnik match. In a real tournament between humans, players aren't allowed to refer to books or databases- they have to go from their own memory. It's harder to distinguish what's what with computers ...[text shortened]... computer competion about a struggle between the "intelegence" of these ai creations.
I amy be wrong but without databases, all games like 2bishops and king vs. king are drawn? Wrong or right?

i

Sydney

Joined
30 May 05
Moves
16100
Clock
03 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by pizzintea
I amy be wrong but without databases, all games like 2bishops and king vs. king are drawn? Wrong or right?
2B + K v K is pretty easy to win
Q + K v R + K is harder but still learnable

More exotic endings like
Q + K v 2N + K
for practical purposes are usually drawn without a database but the basic defensive positions still need to be learnt

v

Joined
04 Jul 06
Moves
7174
Clock
04 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by idioms
2B + K v K is pretty easy to win
Q + K v R + K is harder but still learnable

More exotic endings like
Q + K v 2N + K
for practical purposes are usually drawn without a database but the basic defensive positions still need to be learnt
Not sure about 2Bs but N+B+K vs K I think is drown too without databases...

It would be nice to see a computer without any database playing against a strong human...I think the human would overplay it in the opening and it will be nice to be seen if the human can mantain his advantage in the middle game...

Bedlam

Joined
21 Apr 06
Moves
4211
Clock
04 Jan 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

I read an something that suggested giving the human players low level computer programs (no positional understanding at all) just to avoid total blunders and make the game more "intresting" in the writers view. Likewise they suggested giving the computer a class A/expert player to stop it from making the odd dent positional move.

Personally I prefer just straight human vs computer games.

T

Joined
26 Nov 06
Moves
4690
Clock
04 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Mistakes are a part of chess.

No way on the takeback rule.

S

Canukistan

Joined
04 May 04
Moves
6457
Clock
04 Jan 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by pizzintea
I amy be wrong but without databases, all games like 2bishops and king vs. king are drawn? Wrong or right?
I wouldn't suggest no databases for computer matches, but a limit to their size. Even human players have a certain amount of "database" memory they work from such as the openings they know or perhaps how to play K,B,B vs. K endings. Finding the optimal allocation of database knowledge would be an interesting challenge to the designers. I would suggest this size limit should be the computer equivalent to the grey matter "database" the typical GM possesses if someone could figure this out (or perhaps has figured it out).

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.