Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:48:47 04/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
Here are your issues as I read them: 1) Rules should not be changed such that someone shows up at a tournament and a last minute change results in the program not being coded correctly. I agree with you 100% on this. 2) It is not desirable to have a separate way for a program to play the game for computers as opposed to humans. Fine. Indicating the type of opponent at game start does not seem like a biggy to me and in fact, you could have conditional compiled code for the 50 move stuff so that you run a slightly different version for each, but ok. 3) Programs should not have the ability to announce a >50 move mate and extend the 50 move rule since other programs may not have that ability. I could easily disagree with this one. A GM cannot announce a >50 move mate (usually) due to lack of ability. GMs just do not know the endgames to that nth degree. But, a computer can. So, because a computer is "smarter" (i.e. can search deeper into the endgame due to having EGTBs), why should a position that is a forced win be a draw due to a human limitations rule? But, ok, I will drop it as it doesn't occur that often. But, I think you were missing my main point in the earlier post. The reason for the differences I listed was not that I think we should re-write the rules of chess (and that I was trying to come up with obscure b******t examples). I think we should brainstorm some ideas on how to make computer chess rules better. For example, since you are using human "blind" rules, why not upgrade computer chess rules to human "normal" rules? How do you currently keep track of a scoresheet? I assume that most operators keep a scoresheet next to them during the game. That way, if there is a building wide power failure, there is still a record of each game up to that point. Why not have a printer next to each computer where each program prints out the current move and time? This would more closely emulate keeping a scoresheet which is a rule for normal human chess. And, if a program does not yet have that ability, fine. It would need an operator to do that for it as per the "blind" chess rules. Another example is in the actual play. Why have a board at the site if both computers could be hooked up to each other and playing via one of the interfaces? An additional "official clock" interface could be created and the sponsors of the match could maintain a computer with all official times and even moves for that matter. The official computer could then post out this information out to the Internet or something. This type of thing could also minimize human operator inefficiently in sudden death time controls. The point I am trying to make is to not limit our thinking to traditional human-centric chess and human-centric chess rules and to come up with ideas on how to take advantage of the computer's strength for running computer/computer and computer/human tournaments. And maybe we could extend the current rules at these types of tournaments to take advantage of technological improvements. That's all. I'm not trying to re-write the rules of the game. 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.