Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:15:33 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 14:29:42, Duncan Stanley wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 14:05:14, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On April 19, 2001 at 13:54:30, Duncan Stanley wrote: >> >>>On April 19, 2001 at 13:01:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:55:47, Duncan Stanley wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:50:12, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:46:45, Duncan Stanley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:43:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:37:12, Dan Andersson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It would do to have a settings file or somesuch. And Switch it to the optimum at >>>>>>>>>once close to the match date. Or A gradual normalisation till the match takes >>>>>>>>>place. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Regards Dan Andersson >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course. And can it be forbidden in the contract? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course not! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Oh dear. Even the idealists accept it to be "sneaky and underhand" :-( >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Can't you stay idealist just a little longer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You don't have to be like "them", you know. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Do you feel like you need to behave in a ideal way when you are faced with a >>>>>>dishonest condition? >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Nail, head, hit. >>>>> >>>>>Nor did I. Nor did any young programmer who saw what was going on. >>>>> >>>>>But, if you then "behave in a (less than) ideal way" you join the corrupt >>>>>establishment. And the younger ones see you, and they copy that too, and so it >>>>>continues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Amateur programmers did not have to wait for me to find ways to kill the big >>>>ones with cooked lines in the official tournaments. >>>> >>>>Not that I have anything against amateur programmers. I was one of them not so >>>>long ago... >>>> >>>>That's life. That's the way it is. >>>> >>>>If you want to succed, sneaky tricks will never do it for you. But if you don't >>>>know the sneaky tricks, you might well never succeed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hence the mess you see now. All the 'players' were idealists once. Now they are >>>>>merely corrupt. Don't join them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I think that some people need to learn that chess computers and chess computers >>>>programmers are not little puppets. >>>> >>>>Well... At least some of them are not. ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I didn't explain myself properly. >>> >>>Ok, try again. >>> >>>"Do you feel like you need to behave in a ideal way when you are faced with a >>>dishonest condition? I don't." >>> >>>The statement is a universal one. Almost everybody thinks it. And acts on it. >>> >>>But it has a snowball effect. >>> >>>If one thinks the consensus behaviour is 'dishonest', then it's ok to be a >>>little 'dishonest'. More than ok, one has no choice. >>> >>>Then the consensus behaviour becomes more dishonest, and so on. Whether this is >>>in actual chess game play, off the board play, newsgroup behaviour, commercial >>>behaviour, whatever. >>> >>>Why I said nail, hit, head, was because I believe this is what happened in >>>computer chess. Maybe the snowball now reached the bottom of the hill. >> >> >> >> >>The purpose of the thread I have started is not to promote unethical behaviour. >> > >Clear. > >>The purpose is to show that the condition "Kramnik must have the program 3 >>months before the event" is not a show stopper. >> >>It is a stupid condition that can at best only backfire against the organizers >>and Kramnik, and thus should be removed as soon as possible. >> >>I think it is now clear that: >> >>1) it is interpreted as an attempt to cheat >> >>2) it will FAIL and not help Kramnik at all >> >>It is a DOUBLY STUPID requirement. > >I don't agree. It was obviously an attempt to get round the earlier objection >raised by Kasparov and others that he needed to have some prior knowledge of the >play style he would be facing at the time of the DB match. The main problem in the Deep blue match is the fact that kasparov could not get a revenge match when he has knowledge of the opponent That is not an >unreasonable requirement - after all, in high level human chess, players study >each others games, work on opening preparation and so on. I think that it is more interesting to know if kramnik can beat the program without previous knowledge of the opponent. I think that it will be more interesting for the public to see the following: first Match between kramnik and the program: Kramnik has no knowledge about the opponent and he even does not know the name of the program and can only guess. If kramnik is losing kramnik has 3 monthes to prepare to the second match: Second match:Kramnik can get games of the opponent against other programs and also the name of the opponent but cannot get the opponent. If kramnik is losing the second match kramnik gets the opponent and has 3 monthes to prepare to the third match. The opponent should play in the same way in every day and tricks like changing the playing style in different date are not allowed(in the same way does not mean that it is going to play the same moves because there can be some randomness and it is known that programs with more than 1 processor are not deterministic but the randomness must be the same kind of randomness in all days. 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.