Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:39:16 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 13:09:23, Tony Nichols wrote:
>On January 30, 2006 at 12:16:36, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On January 30, 2006 at 11:47:23, Tony Nichols wrote:
>>
>>>On January 30, 2006 at 10:01:41, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>I guess it's not so important, But even to have an
>>>>>operator making the moves for the program is against Fide rules.
>>>>
>>>>Where did you read this?
>>>>
>>>> Albert
>>>>
>>>>This brings up
>>>>>an interesting subject that most people neglect. What should the rules be for
>>>>>man vs machine events. Clearly the current rules are not adequate.
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>Tony
>>>
>>>Fide handbook,
>>>
>>>Article 1.1
>>>
>>> "The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces
>>>alternately on a square board called a `chessboard`. The player with the white
>>>pieces commences the game. A player is said to `have the move`, when his
>>>opponent`s move has been made."
>>>
>>>Clearly this would make the operator the player and so...
>>
>>Why? I have seen handicapped people, and I don't mean blind, play with the help
>>of someone making the physical moves for them, though they chose the moves. How
>>would the computer be any different? The question is who decides on the moves,
>>not who physically moves the pieces.
>>
>
>
> Physically disabled people are the exception. Special rules are used in this
>case.
>
>
>>>Article 12.2
>>>
>>> A. "During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources
>>>of information, advice, or analyse on another chessboard."
>>>
>>>This would not allow him to consult the computer.
>>
>>You're forgetting that the player is the computer, not the operator. So the
>>question would be whether the computer is consulting the operator, not the other
>>way around.
>>
>
>
> Well, According to the rules the players move the pieces. As far as the
>computer consulting the operator, I assume that's a joke.
>
> I see your next post with the computer rules. This is what I'm talking about.
>The fact that there are special rules for computers would indicate that the
>normal rules are inadequate. So we should not consider computers as normal chess
>players. Since we don't, I think that the rules that govern the human player
>should also be changed. This opens a whole new can of worms.
>
> It seems that the supporters of the computers want every exception necessary in
> order to be able to play. However, These same people want the human player to
>be bound by the same rules used for human vs human games. This does not seem
>fair.
>
> The very definition of the chess playing entity is murky. Is it the engine?
>Clearly this is what plays chess. If so, Why is it allowed to consult an opening
>book and an endgame tablebase? I've heard some say that the program has to be
>taken as a whole. GUI, engine, tablebases, opening book, and whatever else. Most
>of this is the equivalent to outside information. See article 12.2 above. I
>don't see any computer chess supporters claiming that engine X would perform as
>well without opening books and endgame tablebases. Maybe, humans should be able
>to consult their analysis, and endgame books?
>
> I hear many people claim that human vs computer chess is over. The computers
>have demonstrated their superiority. I think it's time to change the rules to a
>more level playing field.
I don't think you need to make changes in the rules. There are rules to cover
the diverse situations. You said there are special rules for handicapped people,
and make no issue about it, but special rules for computers are a problem. I
fail to see why.
Remove the opening book? Remove the endgame tablebases? I really fail to see how
that is going to make it a 'level playing field'. All you will be doing is
devising ways to weaken the program, so that humans can beat them.
Eventually, even that won't help, and then what will you do to 'level the
playing field'? Less RAM? No CPUs over 1 GHz allowed? You either accept that a
program is exactly that: a program. And cannot be compared to a human, or you
start treating it as a human, and demand all kinds of silly things of it. For
example, it is forbidden to take notes during the play. Programs do exactly that
with their hashtables. They write down the moves and evaluations and consult
them. This is forbidden! Etc. You get the picture.
Albert
>
>Regards
>Tony
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.