Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:18:11 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2000 at 00:13:27, Chessfun wrote: >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. > The answer is to find out what command chesspartner uses to set the interface variable. I won't say, to make it at least a bit harder for the cheaters. But once you know the command, +alias solves the problem (note that it probably doesn't use "set")... enough said there... > >>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. I would agree about the right/wrong way to beta test. But people on ICC begin to have a _hard_ time differentiating between "themselves" and "the program". And it turns into a "do anything to win" for reasons I have never understood. In fact, I have _never_ understood why people run programs they didn't write. My son and I drag race, and everybody I see has been working on their own engine/driveline/chassis changes. That is part of the fun. Ditto for our racing on the river. For me to enjoy something like that I have to somehow contribute to what is going on. I can't imagine anything more unenjoyable (to me) than taking a program someone else wrote, an interface someone else wrote, a book somebody else wrote, lashing them up together and playing them on ICC on an account I paid for. I think this is what gets the "operators" into the game. If they don't contribute "something" it is 100% pointless from their perspective. As far as the 18x goes, it does look as though I interpreted the time per move wrongly. My confidence level is not at zero yet, but it definitely dropped a lot after Enrique's post.
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.