I'm lucky. I'm not that good a chess player, so anyone who primarily uses a program rather than their own judgement is going to be rated much higher than me; not one of my direct competitors.

But what about the stronger players? Do those of you who rely on your own ability feel put upon when you think you're playing a machine? Does LG define using a program to be cheating, as the real-time servers do? If so, is there realistically anything Richard can do to make that policy stick?

I ask, because I think at least one top player is subtlly advertising the fact that he's using a computer, and encouraging others to do the same. I don't know what I should do about that.

No that's worth a chuckle or two. Nice play on the word “Asistance”. Here you seem like a native anglophone.

All the chess sites that I know off disallow the use of computers to calculate the respective moves for human players. I think this is a good and fair policy.

However, how are we going to check on this policy, whether a player is using a computer or not? We might suspect that a certain player is using unexpected aide, but we can almost never be a one-hundred percent sure. And even if we are, are we going to ban people from playing on this site?

The point I like to make is that it can not really be prevented. So the question should arise: does it harm 'fair' players, if someone else is 'cheating'.

I can only answer this for myself: it does not bother me at all. As a matter of fact, I think I have more chance of winning against someone who is copying their computer's moves, compared to someone who is playing with a plan.

Does this claim change? Probably, there will be a time when computers begin to outplay all humans. Playing a game against such a strong computer should bring a smile to our face, and be thankful the computer showed us our mistake, so we can learn from it.

Being the highest ranked player on this site, I am willing to play a little match against a computer player. The point is to, hopefully, show, that it is possible to beat computers. I know in GWG a computer player is playing on this site, so maybe someone is willing to do the same for chess?

For the chess community on this site I will present my analysis of the games, as soon as the match is over.

Kind regards,

Mightyking aka Michel

I agree with Mighty King: you can never get 100% proof, so there's nothing Richard can (or should) do.

In reversi, computer programs are superior. I think there's a player who uses artificial intelligence-aid in the reversi championship. It's very frustrating to all the other players who use their own brainpower. But nothing we can do (except for not recognising the player as championship participant and ignore the results against him/her).

I encourage the robots on littlegolem, though, just as long as they present themselves as robots.

People generally like to think of themselves as special somehow. Whether it is because we've got a “soul” or we can think, we need to feel that there is something we can do better than anything else out there. There is a real fear that if we discovered enough, we might find that we are not exempt from the laws of nature. That we might be a “machine” full of moving parts and gears that control our every action like programs control Deep Blue. I think at the most basic level of your arguments, you are saying that “If it doesn't make decisions the way a human does, then it ain't real thinking.” What does it matter if in the end, computer calculations beat out our much flaunted “thinking” processes? I bet The Simple the Lumberjack is probably still complaining that gas powered saw isn't a “real” treecutter. The rules are simple. I agree with klaashass 11 hours ago, and now.. 108% in that people “make calculations” according to some physical law or logic as well. However, a good chess player should knows his opponent, or should I said opponents in (Plural)before the match..I think that a chess game, always thru history is been refer as a “gentleman game”. Let's think that for a moment..imagine that I am only 14 years old, How I will feel..!? to know that a human is disguise from me as an IA. For the records on ICC Internet Chess Club…Ref: (1) guest 301 (38); (2) guest 888; I beat LinuxKnight 2920 and NetCafe-JO 2887(34) on BLIZTZ..THAT'S RIGHT COMPUTER CAN BE DEFEAT..I DO AGREE WITH YOU 8X8 % =64 MIGHTYKING. Do I have the right to known my oponents?

Please Robot who ever you are come forward and identified yourself. I don't want nobody or a robot to steal my candies.

Respectfully yours.

JLV

I am not an active chess player here, and thus have no stake in this argument. I also agree there's probably not much Richard can do about it.

I'll only point out that Josef's “lumberjack vs. machine” analogy misses the mark. If there's a competition among lumberjacks to see who can saw through a log the fastest with a normal saw, and someone shows up with a chainsaw… sure, the one with the chainsaw can win. But that's probably not very fun for most participants.

Maybe there's some “mighty” lumberjack who enjoys the challenge, but most people just want to compete in the spirit of the rules, against other lumberjacks with normal saws.

Like klaashaas, I don't much mind if computers/robots participate on Little Golem, as long as they are identified as such.

Rex

Chess is a game of complete information and true search mode, played on a chessboard, by two persons, with two differently colored sets of men, sixteen in each set, (2) players that move their 16 pieces according to specific rules; the object is to checkmate the opponent's king. We tend to ask what sort of knowledge is chess-knowledge-is it formal or informal. We conclude that it is formal because in principle there are an exhaustive set of rules for winning the game. But, humans do not play chess like computers-at least not all the time. Human chess playing is part behavior-specific action and part not. Skilled players usually play the first few moves of chess openings as behavior-specific action. Some chess endings are also generally performed as behavior-specific action. Skill at chess openings and endings increases as the ability to accomplish behavior-specific action increases. The middle game of chess is not behavior-specific action as far as most good human players are concerned; at least some of the middle game has to do with the quintessentially non-behavior-specific skill of creating surprises. Robots, on the other hand, do play a middle game that mimics what human play would be like; were it to be played as behavior-specific action. The great chess-playing competition between Robots and humans over the last couple of decades has been between the regular action middle game of the best humans and the rule-based procedures of chess programs; slowly the programs are winning. If human brains were better at behavior-specific action, then that, I would guess, is how chess masters would now be playing. On the other hand, what would happen to the culture of chess should a chess-playing machine be built that, THAT could play the game exhaustively and therefore win every time with the same moves? It could be that the nature of the game of chess would change; people would care less about winning and more about the aesthetics. In that case, human chess would become quintessentially non-behavior-specific. “It is very good for a child to talk about what he does not understand; as long as he understands that he does not understand it.” It is like an invisible entity taking a candy from a child”. Yet like aspirant sorcerers, strategically, we know that getting the quasi-magical symbols even slightly wrong can sometimes have catastrophic practical consequences. It's very frustrating to all the other players who use their own brainpower. The idea of a competition between human players and lumberjack SUPERCOMPUTER robots, would then seem as absurd as an adding competition between a human and a computer or a pulling competition between a strong man and/or an invisible chainsaw’s tractor.

“A sound plan makes us all heroes, the absence of a plan, idiots.

-- Alexander Kotov

jlv

What about an “advanced chess” tournament, where computer aid is explicitely allowed?

DVD - “at least one top player is subtly advertising the fact that he's using a computer,”

His name's Kasparov, and he's not that subtle about it! ;-)

MightyKing: “I know in GWG a computer player is playing on this site, so maybe someone is willing to do the same for chess?”

For clarification, in GWG there is now:

1 non-tournament-playing purely computer player (RoRoRo);

1 retired heavily computer assisted human player (me);

at least 1 current computer assisted human player (Tore).

The level of computer assistance amongst the rest of the very highly rated players (>~2200) is unknown. Subtle hints have been dropped by some in various different directions, but most have kept their cards quite close to their chest.

From discussions with a couple of other >~2000 players, it seems computer assistance is fairly limited in its scope, if used at all. It is in part due to being in such a small minority that I have decided to retire from the game. A pole vaulter will always jump higher than a highjumper, it's not a competition.