Author: Harald Faber
Date: 07:52:57 04/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2000 at 10:13:26, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 07, 2000 at 08:54:00, Harald Faber wrote: > >>>I'm not quite sure I understand what kind of point you're making. In my opinion >>>there's three options: >>> >>>1) Computers compete in tournaments until they are superior and then they're >>>thrown out, only to compete among themselves. >> >>Right; it makes sense, doesn't it? > >Not really. I can't see any benefits for human players. If they want to get >beaten they can do it at home. Frankly, I couldn't less about proving the >superiority of chess programs. Of course I mean strong humans. I am sure they don't play tournament games at home against the programs. > >>>2) Computers are not allowed at all, unless it's an exhibition game. >> >>I see no reason why. This way we'll never know how strong the programs really >>are. > >I think that would depend on the gameformat. The strength of programs will >change consistently, so you'll never know. Sure you know. If you now play Junior6/K7-800 against some IMs/GMs you get a rating for this combination. Of course we don't know how Junior7 will perform on K7-1500, but if time, software and hardware comes you can find out again by playing IMs/GMs. > >>>3) Making a rule book for computer participation, i.e. hardware and software >>>regulation. I would suggest: no tablebases, no manmade opening books (difficult >>>to control I know), no access to databases (unless it's own games) and >>>restriction on the number of processors and their clockfrequence. >> >>I'd prefer the commercial version, out of the box, unless there are some real >>bugs like hash too small in default installation, no permanent brain or so. >>That includes the opening book which is delivered within the commercial version. >>Tablebases: why not? Hopefully we are not only interested in the comp-human >>challenge but also in high quality chess! > >Commercial sounds good, but why should programs be born with advantages gained >by training an learning? A tad unfair IMO. If a program is able to develop its >own opening book and endgame experience by playing and learning, then there can >be no objections whatsoever. The human IMs/GMs have also learned, I see no advantage or disadvantage. >There's still the question of hardware. Maybe >commercially available to everyone? Difficult to make rules about. > >Best wishes... >Mogens Sure commercially available so that we get to know how strong a non-special program is.
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.