Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:30:06 08/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 1999 at 11:09:55, walter irvin wrote: >On August 23, 1999 at 10:08:16, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: > >>From the point of view of making a perfect program I think you're right. >>A program should work flawless. >>But from the point of view of an ideal humanlike opponent I think it's required >>the program does these kind of stupid things. That is fine as LONG as the customer can decide to turn these stupid things on and off. But when these stupid things are forced down the customers throat with no control by the customer, then it is NOT required. Bugs are never required (although they are almost always inevitable). In another post, you stated that you would like it if occasionally a program lost a won game due to overrunning time control. How would you feel if a losing program claimed move by repetition after two repeated positions and you had no way to prove it wrong (at least to the program)? This is a mistake often made by humans (but unlike programs, you can replay the game and show the human wrong). You would feel defrauded if a program did that to you and the developer of the program said, "Oh well.". >> >>It's simply a matter of priority and I think it's not unimportant in the >>development of user friendly chess software. >>But -as a program feature, not as a bug. As long as you can turn it off, it's a fine feature. >> >>Jeroen ;-} >the plain fact is it is a bug only if ,it is doing something other than what the >programmer intends it to do .if im wrong please somebody correct me Ok, I will. This is a typical logical falicy. A program is correct since it is doing what was intended. Programmers make mistakes also, even in design. And in this particular case, they did not program it to purposely overrun time control on occasion in order to play more human-like. The human-like explanation is a smokescreen after the fact to explain the bug since the program is touted as having a lot of human-like features. The overrunning is NOT an intentional feature. It is an accidental side effect of them NOT programming it to interrupt the search routine in this circumstance. None of the designers sat around one day and said "Hey. If we don't interrupt the search engine, then it will also play more human-like by overrunning time control every once in a while.". In this particular case, since they did not intend for it to do this, then by your definition, it must be a bug. .but no body >will correct me cause i'm right Consider me nobody. Consider yourself right (most of the time). ;) .the only thing you can say is ,to play perfect >chess, the computer should not lose on time .it would be better to say you dont >like a certain programs time management .but i also think Karpov has poor time >management . KarinsDad :)
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.