Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 23:05:52 04/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2000 at 01:15:33, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 04, 2000 at 22:35:51, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>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. Isn't the maximum length of a game 7 hours (40/2, 20/1, then G/30) anyway? And of course time controls can be as short as you want them to be. (Game in 10 seconds, etc.) >So what is your point? How many 14 hour games are you aware of outside of >correspondence chess? > >The 50 move rule is a bogus rule anyway. The reason it is bogus is that the >Fischer time controls are bogus. With standard time controls, one side wins, or >both sides draw. Simple. No need for a 50 move rule. It was added due to the >desires of GMs to not have to sit around in drawish, but not guaranteed draw >positions, in order to have yet another GM draw. Bogus. Especially in computer-computer games, this is true. For humans, fatigue is a definite factor. If the game goes on too long, this is wearing. For a computer, however, there is no such problem. The computer can play as long as it is plugged in, without getting tired. If the game lasts a million moves, the computer should have no problem. >If there were no 50 move rule and no Fischer time controls, then the game would >be SIMPLE to manage. > >> >>>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. > > >And what about the non-Nalimov EBTBs. Someone had a set before him. There have been several sets, actually. Thompson, Edwards, Stiller, at least. >>I don't see why everyone should be allowed to use the same endgame tables just >>because they are available. > > >Or the same OS. Or the same compiler. Sounds like sour grapes to me Bruce. > > >> >>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. > > >Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was arguing. You responded to me about some 14 hour >tripe in the endgame which was totally illogical and nonsensical. I responded >with some differences between programs and humans. > > >> >>>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. > > >Of course it is unfair. Now you are understanding. Computers have certain unfair >advantages (perfect opening and endgame play) which people may or may not (and >usually do not) have. Computers also have GREAT time management. Computers also >can make 50 moves in 20 seconds if it is required since they do not have to >punch a clock with the same hand. These are all advantages which are not offset >by advantages that humans have. > >They are not offset by: > >1) If the power goes out or the computer crashes, it has an operator to assist. >Why? Blindfold players do not have an operator to assist. > >2) If there is a bug and the program misunderstands which move was made, it can >be corrected by the operator (is there a number of times limit on this?). > >3) Why are computers allowed to use more information than they can store in >memory? Why can they use any database of any size with any information in it? >Humans are not allowed to use databases. > >The point is that there is not an ATTEMPT to make the computers abide by ALL of >the rules of FIDE. They are allowed to bend and break the rules, probably since >the tournament directors cannot be sure what is and is not being done by the >computer. Nor is there an attempt to place rules for computers into the FIDE >rules. Hence, we tend to blow off any of the rules which are human-centric for >programs and only make sure that the computers abide by the "how to play the >game" rules. I'm not entirely clear why the insistence on making computers conform to FIDE rules anyway. Computers are not, and probably never will be, part of FIDE - Humans fear the computer, and will not want to play them in serious tournaments. And if computers ever do become part of FIDE, I suspect that there will be special rules applied to them. I think a new set of rules, applying specifically to computers, should be created, eliminating the 50-move rule and other non-essential rules that are important to humans. There will be special cases dealing with TBs - A declared TB mate is a win, if both sides have TBs and say draw the game is over, etc. For computer-human games, most of the human rules can still be followed. The program doesn't have to recognize the 50-move rule - the operator should be able to do it, and certainly the human opponent will invoke it. >>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*. > > >Why not? > >Let's list the FIDE rules often broken by computers: <SNIP> >>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, As I said above, your computer is not part of FIDE. And as KarinsDad points out, it doesn't follow all the rules anyway. Because there are some things that are just fundamentally different about the way humans and computers play chess, I don't think the rules should be exactly the same. There are clearly some human rules (50-move, etc.), and there should be some clearly computer rules. >Does your program conform to all FIDE rules now? > >KarinsDad :) > > > 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 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.