Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 11:16:00 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 13:39:16, Albert Silver wrote: >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 Thank you Albert, This quote "You either accept that a program is exactly that: a program. And cannot be compared to a human,..." tells the whole tale. Now we can look at the subject of this thread with a different perspective! We cannot compare humans with computers. Any attempt is by it's nature contrived and favors one side or the other. This was my initial point. I of course am a computer chess fan or I wouldn't visit this site daily, But I get tired of seeing posts like this. 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.