Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 21:09:47 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 22:18:37, Adrien Regimbald wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I think that restricting computer engines in a tournament with humans is
>rediculous.
>
>- Some human players is that they are an "external resource". This is
>nitpicking over details - a program could easily include such information within
>the binary itself.
>- Some human players complain about not having an opening book or endgame
>tablebases to use themselves. There may be some reasonable argument here ..
>computer programmers will argue that the humans had a chance to learn the
>openings / endings through books and have memorized the openings / endgame
>techniques .. the humans will argue that they don't have perfect recall of this
>information
>
>It seems to me that it is only reasonable to allow the computers access to
>opening books / endgame tablebases as needed. Perhaps human players will be up
>in arms about it, but it is an extremely unfair handicap for a computer to be
>playing against (for example) a GM who has spent their life memorizing the
>latest and greatest variations in all of their openings.
>
>To show how rediculous the perfect recall argument is - if you take this far
>enough, human players aren't given diagrams when they play of where the pieces
>are best, and humans can't always remember this, so computer shouldn't be able
>to have these internal tables of piece/square bonuses for positional evaluation.
> If we continue this far enough, a computer's eval would be completely
>disallowed, as humans aren't even given piece values when they sit down to play.
>
>I mean, really, come on - it's quite rediculous. If you took 2 GM strength
>players, and you somehow had the ability to take away all the variations that
>one GM had memorized, and all of the familiar endgame positions, who do you
>think would win? That's exactly what is being done to the computers being
>forced to make concessions concerning opening books / endgame tablebases.
>
>As an author of an engine myself, I get quite incensed when people say my
>program is "cheating" by using an opening book.
>
>What is the opinion of other authors on this?
>
>
>Regards,
>Adrien.
I understand the player's concerns.
Computer chess is a serious threat for them, and it would maybe be wise to
discuss, with the players or the FIDE, some rules to prevent computers to either
kill all interest about chess or to get totally excluded from human
competitions.
I think I would accept restrictions on the hardware for example if the players
agreed in return to let computers play more often in human competitions.
Some ideas:
* restricting the computer's speed (in MHz, I don't care about clocks per
instruction and the like)
* restricting the computer's total memory (including hard disk)
* restricting the size of the machine
* restricting the weight of the machine
* restricting power consumption
...
These restrictions will certainly look silly to many of you, but I have
personally no problem about them. Once the rules are known, I'll look for the
computer that fits and develop a chess program for it.
As long as the rules are the same for all the computers, that's fine.
I prefer to have arbitrary restrictions than to have to pay high entry fees in
order to enter a human tournament.
These restrictions would not be more stupid than the rules that manufacturers of
formula 1 cars have to obey. All sports involving machines have this kind of
rules, and nobody objects that the length and the weight of a formula 1 is
limited. I'm saying this just in case somebody replies that limiting the speed
in MHz of a computer is stupid, arbitrary or irrelevant.
Restricting power consumption is silly? But the amount of petrol a formula 1 can
use in a race is limited too.
I know that some will object that limiting the hardware will restrict
creativity, but as funny as it sounds, it is supposed to have boosted creativity
of formula 1 engineers. So what?
Even limiting the amount of noise generated by the computer is fine with me. And
a simple matter of courtesy BTW.
Another known alternative is to allow human players to use a computer during
tournaments. Once again, the type of the computer must be clearly specified by
the rules, so everybody will have the same.
In this case, I hope the chosen computer will be a cheap one, so the idea does
not become an elitist one.
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.