Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:52:58 05/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2000 at 00:01:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 20, 2000 at 17:03:26, pete wrote: > >><snip> >> >>>>Another problems with the idea is that there is no way to check that there is no >>>>hidden opening book. >>> >>>Of course there is. If the tournament organisers supply the hardware and check >>>the files before tournament start. I think it's practically possible to agree on >>>a certain file standard that would make cheating difficult. >>> >> >>I really wonder how you want to do this :-) . >> >>I come with a single file "chessengine.exe " . How do you want to know if it >>includes an opening book or not ? What should the programmer stop to let the >>engine think some random time before playing out the book move ? Or should the >>programmers provide their source code before the tournament starts ? And if you >>say yes , think one step further and imagine the next logical step :-) >> >>Let me explain with another example : some year ago one of the popular topics >>was how programs like Fritz or Goliath were said to be tuned for BS2630 or the >>Nunn positions . How could one prove that ? >> >>I think if it is about limitting the programs I mostly like limitting the >>hardware and think this is in fact really similar to the limits of Formula 1 . >> >>You could also limit the programs size and say for example all of its components >>have to fit on a CD . >> >>But limitting how the programs should achieve their goals under given conditions >>is too much I think . It is a battle of minds , that is what affects the >>interest and attraction ; at this period of time an interesting one . >> >>The programmers with their ideas against the GMs with their ideas . >> >>That the automates achieve similar goals by completely different means is >>another part of the thrill. >> >>If some kind of FIDE rules for computer-human events were agreed on it would be >>a fair battle for all as the programmers could adapt. >> >>But randomly disabling certain program features just how they come in mind ( and >>this is my feeling about the TB decision in NL2000 although it obviously had >>zero influence ) just makes no sense to me . >> >>All this might or might not come in the future. >> >>But what really attracts the public most IMHO is that at the moment the GMs >>still can compete with the programs when they run on whatever hardware they want >>using every trick they can invent . And this still seems to be the case . >> >>So why not wait with the limits until the humans really need them ? >> >>This will come one day , agreed ; for example I personally like to play Shredder >>with a rook in advance . Maybe some future day this will be the only way to be >>competitive for the best human players too :-) > > >This must absolutely be avoided. > >No strong human player will ever accept to play with an advantage. It's just a >question of respect. It's like saying: "OK, I know you are not good enough for >my program, so I give you a rook in advance!". > >Like a slap in the face of the human player! > >The only acceptable way to solve the problem is to have restrictions on the >hardware. > >In particular, restrictions on the total amount of memory (including hard disk) >the program is allowed to use. By making it small enough, it will not be >possible to have big opening books and tablebases. The programmer will have to >make a choice on what he wants to load on the computer. > >Maybe even choices on the opening lines he will load. That is similar to what >the human player does: before an important game, he prepares for his opponent by >doing his opening revision. > > > Christophe I don't see you offering any comparable restrictions on the humans' brains. These have orders of magnitudes more processing power and memory than a gigahertz PC! Dave
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.