Author: blass uri
Date: 22:35:38 05/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 00:05:20, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 No human can check 50000 piece pattern in parallel. I believe that a 386 has a huge advantage in speed relative to humans and when humans will think about the right ideas kasparov will have no chance against a 386. 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.