Author: blass uri
Date: 02:01:25 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 03:30:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 13, 2000 at 02:14:24, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>On June 13, 2000 at 00:05:26, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>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. >> >>It seems like you're missing the point slightly. Noone said that human players >>and computer programs should abide by the exact same restrictions. That would >>not be possible since the approach to the game is very different. The >>restrictions you mention aren't necessary, since computers have similar >>advantages on other areas, which maintains the balance. There's a difference >>between learning by doing and copying without thinking. I leave who's doing what >>as an exercise :o). > >I don't think I am missing the point. People think that computers have an >unfair advantage, so they want to cripple them. I disagree adamantly. > >It is humans who have the unfair advantage. Just because they don't apply it >properly is not the computer's fault. > >Humans have opening books. Does anyone have to sit and think to decide that 1. >e4 or 1. d4 is better than 1. f4 or 1. h4? > >No thought is required because we have memorized the openings. Some very good >players have memorized very deeply. Their "opening book" is probably as large >or larger than any computer opening book. > >I think crippling the programs to play them is just surrender in another format. > Now, if someone wants to surrender, I don't mind. But I (personally) happen to >feel that the programs should be played at their best. And if they beat us >bloody, then that's what happens. The problem is that a lot of humans do not want to play against programs in their best. The result is that computers are not allowed to play in most human tournaments. If you want to see more comp-human games in tournaments the only possibility is to have limitations for the programs in part of the tournaments. I think that limitation about the hardware is the only possible idea to get more comp-human games. I do not want to have less comp-human games when the computers have no limitations but to have also computer-human games when the programs have limitation about the hardware so using opening book is not a good idea because you have less memory and cannot use big programs if you use an opening book. 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.