Author: Jeff Nouveau
Date: 03:54:39 04/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2000 at 06:32:20, Harald Faber wrote: >On April 07, 2000 at 06:08:17, Jeff Nouveau wrote: > >>On April 07, 2000 at 05:41:43, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>On April 07, 2000 at 05:08:06, Jeff Nouveau wrote: >>> >>> >>>>So, I think we agree on the fact that we need 3 sets of rules for these 3 >>>>disciplines. >>>> >>>>I sincerely think that we can find a set of rules that will permit comp-human >>>>competition on fair basis. And I think we need it : many of us want to know :o) >>>> >>>>Jeff >>> >>>What are your suggested conditions? >>>Should humans be allowed to use opening books? Why (not)? >> >>Many simple ideas have been suggested in this forum, and I think they are worth >>experimenting : >> >>1-Use of database (only database, no engine of course ;o), > >For OTB play? I am not sure how big the influence of a large book is for the >program and the human. I'd assume the human to really know his opening >repertoire so that the benefit is not so big. I agree that the influence opening book is not that big. Let's say that it compensate memory failure (it happens...). > >>2-Incremental time control, > >No problem. > >>3-Maybe ending tablebases, if the computer have them. >> >>I don't think we need much more than that. With this kind of conditions, I'm >>sure we respect everyone's work : player, programmer, opening book maker... >> >>What do you think ? >> >>Jeff > >I have come to no conclusion. >Major point of course are the databases, opening and endgame. Computers can >access them very easily. Humans also have their opening database / opening book >in mind. It is smaller, no doubt. But would the human (IM/GM) profit from a real >database instead of only relying on his memory? What about endgame databases? I >think many humans are stronger in endgames than comps even with TBs. Humans know >HOW to play pawn and rook plus pawn endings, assuming more than 2-3 pawns each >side. On the other hand these TBs have surprised even John Nunn in some >positions where humans with their knowledge mis-evaluated some positions. But >how important are they for practical play? I don't know. >And, finally, every opening book, no matter how large it is, has some holes in >it. That's why I think that some experiments must be conducted : we don't thousands of games, just one or two match to adjust the rules. Jeff
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.