Author: KarinsDad
Date: 23:01:18 04/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2000 at 18:28:14, Bruce Moreland wrote: >It is pointless to argue with you KD, you drag every aspect of this into minutia >or non-sequitor. Ok, I won't argue. I'll ask questions instead. > >I am arguing from a very practical point of view, as someone who competes in >person at live computer chess events. In case anyone is listening, here is a >summary of my arguments: > >1) I think that the availabilty of 5- and 6-man tables is a ridiculous reason to >change the laws of chess as they pertain to computer vs computer play. So, is it your belief that a rule like the 50 move rule that was added just in order to not drag out a drawn game for humans who get tired or humans who want to attempt to weasle their opponents into making a mistake should not be re-examined in relationship to computers who a) do not get tired and b) can have EBTB endings that require more than 50 moves per side for the win? But if >this is to be done, the specific endings that may be excepted need to be stated >well in advance of any tournament. So, if we have exceptions to the 50 move rule, you want each and every one spelled out ahead of time as opposed to just dropping the rule, even though there doesn't seem much reason to have it in computer/computer games except for human historical tradition (and the fact that it is already coded into a lot of programs)? It should not be possible to argue that >since I show up with a weird 7-man table, everyone should make allowance for me >since I still want to win any 300-move mates I might happen to steer for. If I >am going to argue that this ending should be excepted, anyone else should be >able to argue that they need ample time to handle the ending specifically. >Personally, I think this is no fun and generally stupid. I've operated with >5-man tables for several years and I've never felt the need to try to bother my >opponent with such esoterica, if I had ever lost a half-point due to the 50-move >rule, I would have congratulated my opponent and added the event to my >collection of stupid computer chess stories. From the point of view of someone >who has the tables, this is all esoterica, but when people who have the tables >try to make others change their programs in order to allow for these weird >cases, that's more serious. You have mentioned several times that you think that a reason that people should not consider rules changes is that it would force computer programers to modify their code. Is this why you appear to be so strongly against examining the differences between programs and humans and coming up with a set of rules for human/computer and computer/computer games that may be different than human/human rules? You don't want to change the code? Also, advances in technology have allowed the addition of elements of chess like Fischer time controls. Why would a time control change be acceptable as a new way to play chess whilst the removal of a human-centric rule like the 50 move rule not be consider acceptable for computer/computer games? > >2) I disagree with the stated idea that one program should be awarded a point in >a given position, while another one must take a half-point in the same position, >based upon what the author says about how the program plays chess. I am not quite sure what you are referring to here. Could you please elaborate? > >bruce 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.