Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 12:16:43 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 14:54:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 20, 2001 at 13:33:09, Duncan Stanley wrote: > >>On April 20, 2001 at 12:50:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>> >>>So the programmer will have no idea about the bad opening lines the human player >>>will have discovered. >>> >>>Under these conditions, it is extremely difficult to have a book wide enough to >>>prevent the human player to reproduce at least one won game. >>> >>>From a practical point of view, no book will be wide enough and there is going >>>to be massive book cooking from the human player. >>> >> >>Ok. I concede you point about possible 'holes' in the book. >> >>I modify my position to "frozen executable + modifiable book". >> >> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>It is impossible to enforce and unfair for the software players. >>> >> >>What software 'player'? Since the concept of 'fairness' to a machine elevates >>machines to a status potentially injurious to mankind, I assume you mean >>fairness to the software author? >> >> >>> >>>And no attention needs to be paid to the views of chess programmers? >>> >> >>None at all. Why should it be so? What is special about chess programmers? >By this logic no attention need to be paid to the views of chess players >What is special about chess players? >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>>> >>>>No compromise? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>I happily accept to compromise on the power of the computer that will be used. >>> >>>That must be the third time I am going to repeat this in this thread: >>> >>>Hardware limitations are fine with me. >>> >>>I would accept a rule that states that the computer must not have more than X >>>processors, each processor being no faster than Y MHz, the opening book being no >>>bigger than Z Mb, and so on. >>> >>>The hardware limitations are fine with me because the human player has hardware >>>limitations too. >>> >>>The software limitations are not fine with me because the human player does not >>>have any. >>> >>>The human player, even if he has a limited "computing" power, is allowed to be >>>as creative as possible. Why would the programmer be forbidden to be? >> >>You can be as creative as you want. But not at the last minute with the effect >>of confusing the human. > >The human can be creative and play in a style that he never played before in >order to confuse the machine so the machine should have the same rights. Machines don't have rights. Do they? Refridgerators have rights? Aeroplanes have rights? Guns have rights? Tractors have rights? Really? You might argue that humans have rights, or you can argue that animals have rights. Some might argue that rights go with responsibilities. But machines? > >Humans can play in a style that they never played before against other humans. >I see no reason to prevent chess programs from doing the same. > Do you see chess programs as equivalent to humans? >> >>> >>>I consider a creativity contest as fair and interesting, so I do not accept any >>>limitation of creativity (what I put in the software). >> >>Nobody limits "what", the limitation is on "when". Not at the last minute. >> >>> >>>Tell me, how could possibly the other side of the equation refuse the creativity >>>contest? Is it insulting for the human players if I refuse to be limited in what >>>I put in the software? >>> >>>If they want to limit creativity, then no match. >>> >> >>False "if". >> >>The problem for computer chess is not that programmers' engines don't want to >>play strong humans. It is that strong humans need much persuasion to play the >>engines. It is a relevance issue. Is your 'creation' relevant? Is it more than a >>fork-lift truck, or a scruncher of square roots? Is computer chess of any >>consequence? Still the question is "what is the objective and purpose and >>relevance of computer chess?", if nobody can answer that question, then why >>should strong humans bother to play programs? >> >>If you go round saying "no match" other than on your terms, then there will be >>"no match". You suffer, not the human. > >You are wrong. >The human also suffers if there is no match because he gets no money for no >match when he can get some money even if he is losing a match. > The human has other things he can do. The chess program has only one function. So the human can go away and do something else. The machine not. On a crass material level the human can earn money in other ways, the program not. It is not an equivalent 'relationship'. The human has other choices, the program not. et cetera. >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.