Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:57:14 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 Sure t >>>>>>>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 Sure they can, maybe even more. Name me all the flowers that rhyme with nose. Name me all the colors that rhyme with tack. Name me all the words that sound like "flower" but mean something different. How would a computer answer those? (a) faster than a human? yes. But (b) in the same way as a human? Not even close. Our memory is _different_ (associative). Our processing is _different_ (parallel). We can do things no computer of today can possibly do. We can do things that no computer will do within the next 100 years...
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.