Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 01:03:01 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2000 at 03:56:07, blass uri wrote: >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. It is my experience that many PLAYERS refuse to play computers, in particular many of the master players ! (A few years ago, Comet participated in 2 human events in the Frankfurt area. The organizers had no objections but IMs complained.) Uli > >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) Yes, sure i agree that there are also "computer-friendly" master players. > >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.