Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 15:06:37 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 17:14:11, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. 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. The concept of >>'playing the opponent' may not be one recognised in computer chess, but it is of >>vital importance at GM level. > > > >I agree with you. Asking for games in correct. > >No problemo. > > > > >>Where the so-called organisers failed was in demanding an unchangeable program >>copy - because of deterministic factors this gives the human player an >>unreasonable advantage, almost equivalent to a brain-scan and carbon life-form >>disassembley, if that were possible. >> >>Kramnik could reasonably ask for a large selection of games played by a single >>copy of the program, preferably against humans, for study beforehand, > > > >This is OK. > > > > >> and also >>insist that the program executable was not modified in any way from that point >>on. > > > >This is not OK. > >The argument that Kramnik itself cannot be frozen as been used against me >recently, and it is valid point. > >If Kramnik cannot be frozen, why should the program be frozen? > > It depends what you mean by 'frozen'. Of course the programmer would be free to develop his program. I would argue that the executable used to create the example games was frozen, in a safe or whatever, until the match. If you were able to argue that program development was only bug fixing or 'minor' improvements that did not affect play style away from the example games, then I guess nobody would complain - but, how would that be policed? Do you think a sudden and dramatic style change from the example games would be acceptable? Me not. I take your point about 'freezing' Kramnik. However, Kramnik is not going to change as dramatically as a program could over the time scale. Is he? Isn't the point to operate in a fair way and to the 'usual' human methods. Preparation by game study - to make this work in human-computer, the programming side simply has to accept an executable freeze for N weeks before the match. How long N is, is up for discussion. > > >> Such a condition simply places the match on a normal strong human-strong >>human level of preparation. The opposition program is of course also able to >>have prepared on Kramnik's game history. >> >>> >>>If it is not removed, then who cares? It is not a valid reason for a chess >>>programmer to withdraw. >>> >> >>Which brings me to the second point; namely that your initial post throws up how >>easy it is to prepare a random-style cyber opponent - one that a human cannot >>make normal preparation against. >> >>In the spirit of how chess games are played, I believe that the computer chess >>community, if it wishes to be above-board in its behaviour would make a rule >>that outlawed such a beast. If it doesn't it can probably forget matches against >>strong humans. >> >>Proposal for rule 1 of computer-human chess matches: "no play style changes". >> >>Interesting to know which programmers would 'sign-up' to such a charter. > > > >I will never sign up on this. > >I think one important improvement in the future will be polymorphic programs. > >I would agree on a limitation on the number of processors and speed of the >computer, no problem. > >But I want to be free about the playing style of my program, until the last >minute. > Then you probably disqualify yourself from playing strong opposition in exhibition matches. The human players simply won't accept it, and there is no reason why they should. They'll argue that you take from them their ability to 'prepare' as per normal before the match. One day, it is possible that programs will be able to outplay the best humans. If, during this process, programmers generate these polymorphic monsters as a means of confusing humans; then humans will simply refuse to participate. Why weightlift against a fork lift truck arguments, et cetera. Any victory will be tainted by counter accusations of winning by confusion, et cetera. Either the current AI techniques are going to work in computer chess, or they are not. Don't try to make additional 'progress' by confusion techniques. It is not fair, and it won't be seen to be fair; however appealing it may be as a technical can-do. Basically it will come across as a cheat. > > > > >>Chris Whittington > > > >You got me. I did not recognize you this time. Sure, a new name coming out of >nowhere looked a little bit suspect to me, but I did not guess it was you. > > I wasn't trying to 'get' you. That would be pointlessly silly. > > > Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.