Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:22:22 09/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2000 at 07:06:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 06, 2000 at 06:48:17, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On September 06, 2000 at 06:08:10, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 06, 2000 at 05:42:53, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>> >>>>On September 06, 2000 at 04:12:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 06, 2000 at 02:20:28, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 06, 2000 at 01:52:00, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 05, 2000 at 18:22:25, Jason Williamson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On September 05, 2000 at 18:17:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On September 05, 2000 at 17:51:28, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>How about it Ed & Christophe? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi Peter, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I haven't changed my mind. There is still no control. Until then... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What do you mean no control? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That nobody knows the games are 100% real. To gain creditability these >>>>>>>games should be played in public (on the chess club or so) so everybody >>>>>>>can see what you are doing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I understand it's an obstacle but it is my reason not to participate in >>>>>>>this tournament. The operator can do what he want as there is no control. >>>>>>>He can override moves, change the time control, force a move he likes and >>>>>>>and and. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Another way (although it solves not eveything) is that somebody else (the >>>>>>>TD) is send the program before the games and carefully checks the moves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think playing serious tournaments on Internet has a great future. More >>>>>>>it has the power to become a serious counterpart for the yearly world >>>>>>>championship computer chess if these kind of things are arranged well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>With Internet events, a certain amount of trust is required. I just don't see >>>>>>any way of getting around that in the near future. >>>>>> >>>>>>But consider this: does it really matter if someone tries to cheat?? >>>>>> >>>>>>Can an operator really improve a program's performance? Don't forget that the >>>>>>time control is quite fast (30 10, or 45 10). I think that the programs are so >>>>>>strong now that even if someone cheated by manually choosing different moves, it >>>>>>would be very tough to do any better than letting the computer play by itself. >>>>>> >>>>>>For every move a human can improve on, there are probably 2 other moves where >>>>>>they just stuff up. It might be easy to poke holes in computer play AFTER the >>>>>>game (hindsight is a wonderful thing), but not nearly so easy to do this >>>>>>confidently DURING the game. >>>>>> >>>>>>I guess someone could use another program to cheat with, but really lets not get >>>>>>too paranoid here. Most of the participants are quite well known in these >>>>>>circles, and seem to be pretty trustworthy. >>>>> >>>>>There are many aspects, I will limit myself to one. >>>>> >>>>>Speaking only for myself: I don't want to become into the temptation to >>>>>cheat. >>>>> >>>>>[Q] Do I trust myself? >>>>>[A] Yes. >>>>> >>>>>[Q] Do I COMPLETELY trust myself? >>>>>[A] No. >>>>> >>>>>Here is a story from a long time ago, actually it was my first tournament >>>>>the WCCC 1986 in Cologne. Playing in the last round Rebel had a winning >>>>>position and if Rebel would win that game then Rebel was the new world >>>>>champion all classes. >>>>> >>>>>On a given moment it was considering 2 moves, the good move and a losing >>>>>move. When I saw Rebel was changing its mind to the bad move somebody told >>>>>me I should press the "force move" button so the good move would have been >>>>>played. I wasn't willing. Then the person in question moved his hand to the >>>>>"force move" button and "in a second" I had to decide what to do. I did the >>>>>right thing and pushed his hand away. Rebel played the bad move and Rebel >>>>>lost the game. After the game I was called stupid throwing away the title. >>>>> >>>>>In that remarkable "second" the option "why not" certainly crossed my mind >>>>>and I think that nobody is excluded from such temptations when so much is >>>>>at stake. >>>>> >>>>>[Q] What will I do next time? >>>>>[A] Probably the same >>>>> >>>>>So I end as I started: I don't want to become into the temptation to >>>>>cheat, not anymore. >>>> >>>>Do you honestly believe that you cheating would make Rebel any stronger? >>>> >>>>I'd say that if most program authors (myself included) started overriding their >>>>program's choice of moves then their program would just play WEAKER! >>>> >>>>It might be an interesting experiment though... >>> >>>It may be an interesting experiment to play a match between a program and itself >>>when in one side of the game the programmer has the right to fix the moves. >>> >>>If programmers are intelligent enough their program will not be weaker by fixing >>>the moves because they will fix the move only when they are sure that their >>>program do not understand the position. >>> >>>I think that it is a good idea to do the tournament as tournament of >>>teams(program+operator) so the only way to cheat is by using another program. >> >>Rebel+me = elo+200. >> >>Ed > >I am sure that you can help Rebel but is the 200 elo based on test games? It is based on the games of the GM challenge. It is simple: don't interfere when there is tactics on the board. Interfere (for example) when strategic is on the board. With the help of Rebel I can check my suggested better moves. Ed >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.