Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:13:27 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 23:34:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: <snip> > > >Book is pretty easy to follow. It _could_ be a result of "book learning" but >I have no idea how Tiger does that. It _could_ be a result of the operator >choosing the particular opening. That is _common_ for all programs on ICC. This could be just my own lack of knowledge as I'm not aware that could be done. The interface is set to either allow manual play or automatic. I don't think it can be switched midstream, at least as far as CP5 goes. >>Then as to the statement you make. >>I am not aware how in the (CP5) interface it is possible to make the >>program think for a longer period of time that it chooses to. >> >>Now naturally you have no experience with CP5 as there are only some >>25 copies in use, but assuming that you refer to these practices happening >>in previous CP interfaces and therefore assume it can happen in (CP5) please >>explain how?. > > >In CP 4 it was easy. Several documented (to ICC folks) how easy it was to >cheat using the chesspartner interface. I won't spell out the details, but >I would assume they are obvious to anyone that has used it a bit. And I also >am assuming that 'features' were not taken out, which would be unusual. I am pretty familiar with it and see no way, but that could be simply that I'm not looking. >>Since the pgn's do not have a time per move there is no way to check your >>statement without a long and laborious task at ICC. That is assuming that it is >>possible per the previous paragraph, that the operator can influence time. >> >>Sarah. > > >You will have to simply watch some games. And then determine if you can find >positions that occur where the program took _far_ longer in the game than it >will if _you_ play over the game. > >manual computer operators are quite open about doing this. And I don't give it >a lot of thought, other than to think that were I doing the same, it would be >more "equal" than having a human help only on one side. >Older chesspartner users simply set things up for the program to 'observe' >in the background while the human played the game, to choose the opening. Then, >once they reached the opening position they wanted, they would click the "play" >mode on and let the program take over. I would agree from the manual operators it is easy to make the program think longer and or even not play a move or even switch programs during the game. But CP is an automatic interface, however since I'm not sure about what you say I'll have to check. >I don't know whether this has continued >in the current CP version, but it was definitely a "cheaters delight" when it >first was made available. :( I didn't release my "custom interface" that I >use to give online analysis during live games on ICC, because it would have >made cheating just as easy as the CP interface originally did. Bruce didn't >release his interface for the same reason. Of course we knew someone would >do one, and they did... I guess sadly there are always cheats as you know we had this conversation recently where you stated about removing the kibitz (which I can confirm at ICC you are correct). Also the display of variables I am not sure how to remove. The CP 4.2 interface simply reads "" but then it is obvious. But as you stated there are ways around it and naturally I have no reason to doubt that. >My original question still stands. If the program searches between 1-2 minutes >per move (I would assume that in a 30 30 game you can find out what it would >like to target for the time) and then goes well over 10 minutes in a position >that is _not_ getting worse for it, then it looks like manual intervention. I >have seen it happen often enough for manually operated programs that it is not >hard to spot. Most programs are pretty regular in their time usage, although >you _must_ watch the game to follow the pattern. ICC times are no good since >they don't factor in pondering time. IE Crafty is _very_ solid in its time >usage, until it finds an obvious move (easy move) or a fail-low condition. >Some programs have a roughly 2x variance (they try to finish an iteration, or >choose to not start another due to time left, etc). But I find over 10x unusual >in a case where there is no 'problem' to be discovered... My obvious >conclusion, based on lots of observation, is that the operator is exerting undue >influence... I can only defer to Enriques post about it's actual time usage. Though from my own point of view I feel any person beta testing in that manner to be totally wasting their time as I see nothing to be gained from the exercise. Sarah.
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.