Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 07:52:29 05/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 01:35:38, blass uri wrote: >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 How do you know that? What if I said that a human with 50000 piece patterns (e.g. a master chess player) checks them in parallel, in about the first second or so that they look at a position? I didn't say that the action had to be a conscious one. I am, however, reasonably sure that humans do it regularly. (Well, in my case, maybe it's only 5000 patterns. ;-) Source: experiments beginning with deGroot 1965, which may not jive exactly with what I've suggested, but my recollection is that it was along those lines. 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.