Author: blass uri
Date: 13:51:47 05/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2000 at 13:52:58, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 I disagree. No human can compete with a 386 in simple actions like multiplying numbers. I believe that a 386 should be enough to win kasparov if people write the right program. Uri
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.