Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 07:25:37 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 14:52:02, Shaun Graham wrote: >Hyatt you may be a computer scientist, but apparently your education in >experimental scientific technique is limited. Yes, continue to hurl personal insults, and bore the rest of us to death. If you are trying to test a >programs to find its strength in real tournament chess, against normal chess >play. Then it is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE to eliminate the bias. When a player >knows he is playing a computer, the tester of such an event can not know that >this information is not skewing the behavior of the player, and thus the >results. So you can not know how strong the program is against standard chess >play. What you would be fnding is that against anti-typical chess play, the >program does not perform effectively. Okay, say Jeff is a good player, *except* that he allows Scholar's mate to occur 50% of the time when playing Black (1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6 4. Qxf7#). Future opponents will note this unfortunate tendency of Jeff's by examining prior games of Jeff, and when they play Jeff, they will give this move order a shot, it has a good chance to work every time. It doesn't matter that opponents of Jeff wouldn't try for a Scholar's mate against any grandmaster, it becomes 'standard play' against Jeff because it is successful. Anti-computer play is part of standard chess play. It's resorted to whenever players feel they would derive advantage from doing so (e.g. when playing computers or suspected computers). Dave Gomboc
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.