Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 02 Jan '07 15:22
    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?
  2. 02 Jan '07 15:27
    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.
  3. 02 Jan '07 15:28
    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 ...
  4. 02 Jan '07 15:33
    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.
  5. Donation briancron
    nunquam perdo
    02 Jan '07 16:07
    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
  6. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    02 Jan '07 17:43
    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-
  7. 02 Jan '07 18:19
    If I could take back my bad moves I'd win a lot more games.
  8. 02 Jan '07 19:18
    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.
  9. 02 Jan '07 22:47
    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.
  10. 03 Jan '07 05:18
    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?
  11. 03 Jan '07 05:38
    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
  12. 04 Jan '07 10:21
    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...
  13. 04 Jan '07 10:25 / 1 edit
    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.
  14. 04 Jan '07 15:51
    Mistakes are a part of chess.

    No way on the takeback rule.
  15. 04 Jan '07 18:58
    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).