Author: Robert Raese
Date: 18:04:45 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
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? > >> >> >> > >>> >>>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. > >> >>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. Your task is to prove your relevance, not >the other way round. > >>> >>>The idea is to turn me into an object, I suspect. Objects are easier to deal >>>with. >> >> >> >> >>No, the idea is to turn an annoying thing into fun. >> >> > >We'll stop now. I don't seek to be an "annoying thing" and didn't think I was >doing so. > > >> >> >> >> >> Christophe ============== >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 height of absurdity. the whole idea is to confuse the human. that is how the machine will win. do not try to divorce the programmer from his creation when it is their time to prepare for battle. as long as machines require an operators, there will only be a SYSTEM, not just a software. the competitive system is software/hardware/operator... one "polymorphing" SYNTHESIS.... this is everything to understand the current debate. if i am operator in such a system, it is my job to serve the other parts in this system to maximize their chances for performing optimally agaist OUR foes. it is self-evident that in chess matches, as in war and streetfights, the element of SURPRIZE is everything. chess is virtually defined as the attempt to surprize your opponant. to say, "no fair, you confused the human at the crucial moment" is a COMPLIMENT to any operator worthy of the title. read up on your sun tzu: win the battle before it starts, your opponant is trying to. chess is a war game, leave the moralists outside the gate when the question is how to crush your foe. this is a game, but it is a serious game. WIN IT. my 2 cents. rob raese
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.