Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 15:55:47 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 18:32:20, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 ??? > > Simply because, if there was an agreement to not change style and a commercial contract and a seven figure sum, there's the usual problem of trust (lack of). > > >>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? > Of course not. How can you suggest that? Couldn't you create a Tiger that didn't play the same game twice? There's a lot of opening moves aren't there? > > > >>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 ? Probably the only way would be an industry code of conduct. That's why I would ask programmers to sign up to make programs that would not do dynamic style changes. Of course you would have different style options, but once a 'style' was selected, the program stayed with it. > >Are you going to insist on DETERMINISM from chess computers? This is going to be >a problem for SMP programs, you know. > I didn't see a deterministic program yet. But these are random move selection changes, often inexplicable by the programmer even. Not the same as a whole style alteration. > > > >>>> 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... > > Unnecessary comment. They aren't robots, their acceptance of terms is needed. Hence some attention needs to be paid to their views. > > > >>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. > > Ok, your position is clear. You require total freedom of action up to the last minute to present whatever software engine you wish. Why? Or, I rephrase the question. You are one side of the equation. A human is on the other. He may argue for some conditions, which he considers totally fair and reasonable. You are going say "I do what I want"? At the expense of no match? No compromise? > > > >>>>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. The idea is to turn me into an object, I suspect. Objects are easier to deal with. > >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 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.