Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:05:26 06/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2000 at 20:15:38, mike schoonover wrote: >this is just my humble opinion. >instead of programs having opening books,let them have opening programs. >sub routines if you will.they would have an under standing of the openings, >postionenal,and tactical. >i know from a programing piont of view this must be a nightmare, >but,consider the middle game sub routines. >difficult,yes,impossible,no. > >my point is a human can't page through his opening library when playing a game. >a computer can with deadly accuracy. >i beliave the same to be true with ebtb's. Since we are interested in fairness, I subit the following: 0. The human players cannot use any opening they have memorized. After, that is unfair use of stored knowledge. If someone is allowed to use a known opening, it will be only under the conditions that they have never played a game of chess or read a chess book -- but only been given a sheet of paper holding the rules of the game. Of course, after reading it, it must be set aside (no cheating). 1. The human can only think for 1e9/1e21 = one trillionth as long, since the human brain can perform 1e21 computations per second [Morozevitch's book on AI] while a good computer can barely muster one billion calculations per second. Having these two minor restrictions set in place, we can have a truly fair chess game and everyone will be happy.
This page took 0.01 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.