Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:32:20 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 18:06:37, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>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?
Why should this be policed at all ???
>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?
Of course he will. If you want a brilliant example, look at GK-DB match II.
If is he allowed to have the program in advance, he would play ANY playing style
that leads to a won game learned by heart.
So now you are in favor of book or program cooking by humans?
>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.
We can discuss this, but if I make a program that changes its playing style
automatically all the time:
1) how are you going to prove it ?
2) how are you going to forbid me to do so ?
Are you going to insist on DETERMINISM from chess computers? This is going to be
a problem for SMP programs, you know.
>>> 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.
Poor little things, those GMs...
>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.
OK, so in order to be fair I want human players to be disqualified if they play
the Stonewall against my program.
I have already told you that IMO a limitation on computer power is fine with me.
But please let me do what I want to do with the software part.
>>>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.
I know, it's just a private joke in this forum. The game is called "Catch the
Whittington". You earn points, then when you have enough points you receive a
CS-Tal II.
I haven't got one, yet. :(
> That would be pointlessly silly.
It would not be the first time you would be... ;)
Nor the first time I would be! ;)
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.