Author: blass uri
Date: 00:56:07 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2000 at 03:36:17, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >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 fully agree with you. >Unfortunately, it will become increasingly difficult, to have a computer >participate in a humans' tournament (the chance is already zero today unless you >pay a lot). However, I doubt that compromises of the above kind (omit some >hardware or databases) will stop this trend. I am afraid, we have to live with >it. > >A "fair" chance to compare were man-machine events where it was clear from the >beginning that humans have to play machines. I guess these are all gone now. > >I think, the best chance today to get human opponents for a prog are in fact the >chess servers. > >Uli I think that the problem is that some sponsors are against computers. I do not think that less humans will play in tournaments if they know the prizes for humans are the same and also that everyone has to play with the computer. Maybe there are some humans who will not play in this case but there will be other humans that will be happy to play computers because they believe that they can get better results against computer relative to other humans with similiar rating and improve their chance to win prizes. (hasidovski(2177) drew against 3 chess program in the israeli league) Uri
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.