Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 19:35:51 04/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2000 at 21:17:53, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 04, 2000 at 21:01:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On April 04, 2000 at 18:57:59, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>PS. However, if a computer announces mate in 573, it should have to prove it and >>>should have to play unless it's opponent resigns. The TB code or the TBs could >>>have a bug, so it's only mate if it is mate. IMO. >> >>Why should it get the opportunity to prove it, if it takes 14 hours to do it, >>requires an exception to FIDE rules to do it, and requires that I modify *my* >>program so that it will allow the game to continue after it is over according to >>FIDE rules? >> >>bruce > >Why should it take 14 hours? In a G60 game, it would have less than an hour (of >it's time) to prove it. Just because it has a forced mate does not mean that it >gets to go over the time limit. G/60 is not the shortest time control played. >The FIDE rules were created with human adjournments, and other human >considerations in mind. > >Why should a computer be allowed to write anything to the hard disk other than >actual move made and actual time used? What is all this score stuff and lines >stuff? > >Humans are not allowed that privilege. > >Why should a computer be allowed EGTBs in the first place? Personally I think that Nalimov should be allowed to designate one program as "his", at which point he'd become a co-author of that program, and nobody could use the tables in official competition except that program. I don't see why everyone should be allowed to use the same endgame tables just because they are available. The reason they are legal is that they are part of a chess playing system running on a computer. You can argue about whether any aspect of the system is legal, or whether a bumble bee can really fly, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if you wish, but I won't join you. >Humans are not allowed to use a piece of endgame reference material. > >Why should a computer be allowed a learning function during a game? > >Humans are not allowed during the game to write down any learned information. > > >The bottom line is that computers and people are DIFFERENT. Hence, the rules >should take that into account. Yes, and in this case it is being proposed that the rules change based upon the capabilities of my opponent, and what is legal for one opponent is not legal for the other. That is unfair. My point is that while it is true that endgame tables are something that programs can and do use, their use shouldn't be forced -- there is no reason that entries that make use of them should be given chances to win the game that aren't also accorded to entries that don't have them. Chess is played according to the rules of a world governing body. As much as is possible, computer chess should be played by the same rules. The differences between computers and humans are not so severe that different rules are *required*. The fact that there are a lot of users of the Nalimov tables is just tough tooties for them. I don't think that the fact that lots of people have taken advantage of "perfect play for free" in endgames should affect the rules of the game as it is currently played between computers. I should not have to change my program so that it no longer conforms to FIDE rules unless there is a compelling reason, and "It would be inelegant and/or difficult to make the Nalimov tables conform to FIDE rules", is a ridiculous reason, and it's completely crazy to even think of allowing this reason to affect the rules used by in ICCA events. No offense is intended to Nalimov, by the way. bruce >Either that or both side should have the same restrictions. For example, EGTBs >should be disallowed when computers play according to FIDE rules. And, of >course, computers should not have an operator. Humans do not use an external >operator. The computer should be started up and left to it's own devices. > >You should not be allowed to have your cake and eat it too to the disadvantage >of other players. Computers have that advantage. > >KarinsDad :)
This page took 0.01 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.