Author: Pete R.
Date: 09:29:41 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2000 at 03:30:16, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 08, 2000 at 18:25:59, Pete R. wrote: > >>They are two different entities who approach chess in a different way. It's a >>waste of time to argue the difference between a "lookup" and memorization when >>it comes to computers. Then you could argue that humans should have access to >>opening and endgame books as well, etc. This is fine in principle, but >>considering that humans are still stronger at long time control, it's too early >>to worry about this. When PCs are unbeatable even against the SuperGMs at long >>time control, then we start to handicap the machines. At this point though the >>war is not over yet, and it's too early to cripple anyone, especially the >>underdog. > >That is one way of doing it, but I'm quite sure that a lot of GMs wouldn't >consent to playing against a crippled version once they've lost to the full >version. That would be considered an insult for most of the players IMO. Once >the computer program wins, no matter the configuration, tournament chess between >computers and human players will be a thing of the past. > >Sincerely, >Mogens It may well be true that players would refuse to play a dumbed-down version of a program that has beaten them. So then we should cripple the programs beforehand, to ensure that they never win? If the players admit now that the computer is stronger, then there is no point in playing. But to my knowledge humans have not yet admitted defeat against computers at long time controls, therefore the programs should play at full strength. I understand that some may not wish to participate in such play, but if you do you should play to beat the program at its full strength, not ask that it be crippled for you.
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.