Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:05:20 05/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2000 at 16:51:47, blass uri wrote: >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 Who needs to multiply numbers when you can check 50000 piece patterns in parallel? 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.