Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:45:09 02/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 20:42:54, Peter Hegger wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 13:33:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 04, 2003 at 12:38:07, Peter Hegger wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2003 at 11:35:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>(much snippage) >>> >>>>4.) in a defined period of time, say half a year, the progs are forbidden to be >>>>changed; new games into book are allowed, techno bugs are allowed to be >>>>corrected; but the chess system of the engine version jan-june is constant; >>>>books are allowed but without lines no computer ever could solve actually; >>>>tables must be discussed by the nasters themselves and possibly forbidden and >>>>reduced or such! >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>>Rolf, >>>Yes, this would definetely give the poor human a much better chance to compete. >>>But don't you think this is stacking the deck in favour of the humans a little >>>too much? >>>I, personally, could never beat my car in a race if it were set up and running >>>properly. However, if I pulled off a few spark plug wires, let the air out of >>>the tires and drained out the oil, I would then stand an excellent chance of >>>defeating it. >>>This is basically what you want to do to the programs. You want to weaken it, >>>like I would weaken my car and then when it loses you can say " see, I told you >>>that the programs are not that strong". >>>Would that really be fair? >>>Regards, >>>Peter >> >>No, I don't see the analogy here. You reason as if the prog should simply play >>chess as it is. And I am saying that we need rules for human-comp competition. >>You might be right that today we would get advantage for humans, but that is >>also exactly what is the truth, if you believe experts, but I wanted to give a >>general approach also for the next couple of years. It will become more and more >>difficult. I don't get what you mean with advantages. You insinuate that it's >>unfair if we would play like this? So fair is only fair if we let the computer >>side do what they want? Peter, I know that a constant identity is a problem. >>Computerchess programmers do want hourly tweakings. But I fear you all oversee >>what tweaking means for human players. They must feel like secondary garbage >>just being used for the glory of CC and the machine. >> >>Peter, just forget it, let's skip the tournament chess of humans and machines >>and continue with the hoax of show events. Kill your own future. Do what you >>want. I won't stop you. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >Rolf, >Let me approach the problem from a different angle. >Would you accept the following proposition? I'll not tweak or fiddle with my >program for 6 months before the GM-comp. match as you suggest above. We'll also >get a committee of masters together to determine which opening book can be used. >If the computer doesn't understand the resulting position of a certain opening >then that position will be stricken from the book as you also suggest. >In return, however, we must also level the playing field. The human master must >also sit in front of the same masters committee and explain each opening he/she >intends to use. If the committee feels that the GM isn't 100% certain on >resulting positions then he/she will also be restricted from using that opening. >Also, in all fairness, the human GM will not be allowed to play, study or open a >chess book for the same six months that the computer can't. >Do you now see just how absurd your suggestions for computer restrictions are? >If its not good for the goose then its not good for the gander either. >Regards, >Peter Peter, you don't understand me! Read above! I do NOT talk about show events. I mean tournament chess events! Several for these 6 months! And I allow that you twist you book, you can define openings prog should play in tournament 1 and not in tournament 2. Do you get this now? The ONLY think I want to exclude is that 1) you fiddle between single games, because I think chess is variable enough 2) you fiddle with openings where NOT the final positions are BAD for comp or couldn't be understood! No, I am talking about openings whose positions these programs actually could NOT understand and where they would play GARBAGE if the book would not be there! To be clear, I want to exclude lines who might well lead to a equal position in the end but who contain positions where a comp would commit suicide - IF without book! Peter, please ask all the questions you like. Until you have understood what I meant with my main point. Otherwise the debate is moot. Rolf Tueschen
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.