Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 15:33:48 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 17:15:33, Uri Blass 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. > >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 Yes. He was very badly advised. Should have been in the contract. But, that aside, it was a problem for him that he has no knowledge in the actual match. At that level they (the strong human) is playing on opponent knowledge - this is why he is a strong GM. > > 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. Begs the question again. What is computer chess's objective? What are you trying to do? From the points below, you appear to posit computer-human chess as a 'spectacle' for the audience. Fair enough. But for developers it is presumably something different, for organisers or publishers something else - science? or status? or money? What is computer chess for? > >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.