Scenario Two: Author One is going to write a book. He has a dictionary and a notebook and access to a whole stack of information.
Author Two is going to write a book. He too has a dictionary and a notebook and access to a whole stack of information.
Probably neither will write a best seller but they have the same tools at their disposal.
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
Originally posted by LittleDonkeyOne has to be a bit careful with analogies because they tend to oversimplify the problem at hand leading to logical fallacies.
Scenario Two: Author One is going to write a book. He has a dictionary and a notebook and access to a whole stack of information.
Author Two is going to write a book. He too has a dictionary and a notebook and access to a whole stack of information.
Probably neither will write a best seller but they have the same tools at their disposal.
Due to the fact that you are equating writing a book (a creative process) with openings (an "if-then" rule following process) I think a more correct analogy of the second scenario (which by the way I believe gives an unfair advantage to the opening engine player) is this:
Both authors have to do a literal translation of a chinese text
Author one has a 100 page dictionary
Author two has a 1000 page dictionary.
If the process requires negligible thought process, who will do a better translation?
Originally posted by vzografosYou're only looking at one possible outcome and applying it to the whole game. The RNG is also telling the player play the obvious and move on when more thought would be better. And it's all random. Quick/slow/quick/slow/quick/quick/slow.. the player can't ignore the RNG. You'll produce an effect but it won't be better chess.
hmmm....I am not really convienced that it is so easy to draw conclusions on how an engine score vs an RNG would affect the player.
For example, a false score indicating the existence of a good move might cause the player to examine the position more thoroughly, pay more attention and generally have a better game. The only thing that the player (thinks wish I could actually test this and see how an RNG actually affects a player. Food for thought.
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
You're only looking at one possible outcome and applying it to the whole game. The RNG is also telling the player play the obvious and move on when more thought would be better. And it's all random. Quick/slow/quick/slow/quick/quick/slow.. the player can't ignore the RNG. You'll produce an effect but it won't be better chess.
Can you expand a little bit your thought? I didn't quite understand your point.
If you want to make a golddigging analogy think of the following:
Both players have a spade
One of them has a device that beeps if there is gold within a 10km radius.[/b]
A 10km radius is an arbitrary distance. Why 10km and not 1 metre? You are setting a large area to re-inforce your point. By setting such a large area you are saying there is no advantage when clearly there is.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by thaughbaerIn one of your 5 active games I put you at a -3.
You're only looking at one possible outcome and applying it to the whole game. The RNG is also telling the player play the obvious and move on when more thought would be better. And it's all random. Quick/slow/quick/slow.. the player can't ignore the RNG.
Seriously.*
Reaction?
🙂
look down below...
*kidding!
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
Originally posted by LittleDonkeyTrue. I chose an arbitrary large distance to illustrate that a score from the engine (as a 10km beep from the device) does not give you a direction where to look at. More precicsely, it does not give you some idea of the next few moves.
And just like gold digging you need to search for it. And searching can be the same as searching over 3-4plys or more (which for humans can be quite hard).
So yes. You are right. The distance is arbitrary and actually irrelevant. It could be 10 or 100 km. As vast as the possible moves in chess.
well then, think outside the rhp box. i told you earlier, that on other sites this is ok and really allowed.
here it is cheating. very simple.
(but certainly you are clever enough to understand the tos yourself, you are just making 'academic thought experiments' here, after all)
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
Originally posted by JS357hehehe.
In one of your 5 active games I put you at a -3.
Seriously.*
Reaction?
🙂
look down below...
*kidding!
Wouldn't be surprised actually. I suck. I am really very good at getting any position from +10 to -5. 🙂
But interesting though. How would I react. Ok lets put it into perspective.
Assuming that my position evaluation skills are relatively ok then:
-If I evaluated a position to be +X say, and the engine gave me the same, then I would continue playing as I do (no extra effort to find stronger moves). Perhaps I would become a bit lazy and complacent.
-If I evaluated the position to be 0 or -X and the engine gave me +X I would attempt to find the strong move. With, of course, no guarantee that I would actually find it. Still I would try
-If I evaluated the position to be 0 or +X and the engine gave me -X first I would panic 😀, well I would be concerned because there is little you can do unless your opponent blunders or misses the strong move.
I mean from the above (ok very strict rules but for arguments sake), I dont see any clear advantage from knowing the score. Perhaps it can lead you to pay more attention at a certain position but that's really not the same as saying that you will always find a good, strong move.
Of course, the other argument is that using an engine like that may be considered (somehow) as a non-specific aid in positional analysis, and then perhaps is an unfair advantage.
I am just not convienced that the player can always convert this aid into an advantage. Perhaps it also depends on the level of the player.
Originally posted by vzografosYou're saying the RNG is feeding the player some anaylsis of the "opportunity" in the position at random. The information is only of be benefit if it's accurate. If the "opportunity" throughout an entire game were truly random you'd break even. You can't just pick the cases where it helped. I don't think it's truly random though.
Can you expand a little bit your thought? I didn't quite understand your point.
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
Originally posted by tharkeshWell anyway. It was not oriented towards RHP or any site whatsoever.
well then, think outside the rhp box. i told you earlier, that on other sites this is ok and really allowed.
here it is cheating. very simple.
(but certainly you are clever enough to understand the tos yourself, you are just making 'academic thought experiments' here, after all)
It was more to start a discussion about these two scenarios that have been on my mind. Namely if and how one can take advantage of an engine positional analysis (in terms of a single number) and a dense opening book.
Trust me, If I wanted to cheat I wouldn't be bothering will all this.
I think I have it.
A player sees his postion evaluated by a box and plays a move based
on that evaluation.
I'm thinking depending on the playing strength of the player they will see
that they are winning/losing and play accordingly.
The random number aspect will have the player distrusting the number
and play the board.
Sorry to bring cheating back into it:
You cannot leave an OTB game and ask someone if they think you are better
or worse. Even without any analyse seeking an answer would be cheating.
Getting told you are better or worse (play for a win, play for the draw) is
also cheating. It's what the yoghurt dispute was all about in the 1978 Karpov
- Korchnoi match.
Just wanted to clear that bit up.
But I think I see where you are going.
Is it two players play OTB with a dial next to their clock showing what a
mainfame thinks of each players position.
Both players can see each other's dial so one player knows for sure he is better
and the other knows he is worse. (though any player +1600 should realise this too.)
Interesting. Actually it close to what goes on in the minds of good players.
What you need are test dummies to play a game and write '+' '=' or '-'
after each move depending on how they see their postion.
Then compare the results with a box.
Using different classes of player it may produce something we already know.
Good players evaluate chess positions better than weaker players.
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
Originally posted by thaughbaerI think I understand what you are saying. Or at least I hope so 🙂
You're saying the RNG is feeding the player some anaylsis of the "opportunity" in the position at random. The information is only of be benefit if it's accurate. If the "opportunity" throughout an entire game were truly random you'd break even. You can't just pick the cases where it helped. I don't think it's truly random though.
But then you assume that the player can always convert any opportunity to an advantage. It would be like solving a chess excercise at every move without knowing if you got ir right or wrong.
I need to think about this for a second.
Namely, if the "opportunity" signaling is wrong or random or biased (and of course the user does not have too many samples to determine its an RNG) would that cause you to miss all oportunities (hence breaking even), try harder to find oportunities and exploit them, or have no effect whatsoever.
Ok, some opinions I have read claim that an engine that gives the score will always give some advantage.
My RNG example was trying to illustrate the opposite. If the engine gives you and advantage then a RNG should give you a disadvantage. Right?
Does the opposite also hold?
If the RNG has no effect whatsoever what does that say for the engine?