Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 11:14:22 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 13:09:55, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On November 14, 2000 at 13:00:53, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: > >>It´s a big deal because the program expects to play a human opponent and when >>the person who is running the (C)(in this case Rebel Tiger) analyzes the games >>played against humans, he will analyze this game too and import it to a database >>with all human opponents. So, he will get wrong results.. Allthough, it´s just >>one game but if everybody cheats, then the results against humans will be >>completly worthless. IMO > >A good point if it's important to distinguish between human and computer >opponents when analysing your games. However, a lost game is a lost game and >should analysed due to that fact alone independent of the opposition. > >I'm still of the opinion that it's rather harmless to play "advanced" chess >against a computer opponent compared to cheating against a human player. But >maybe I'm just against the idea of computer program "rights" in general :o). > >Mogens. Yes, if I had my own program to operate, I would not distinguish between humans and computers when analyzing the games, but I guess there is a difference. Bob for example, would care as he prefers to play against the GM´s on ICC and analyzes those games with more interest then against computers. It depends on who is operating, but I guess most of the operators cares wheather it´s a human or a computer. Advanced chess is interesting for sure, but I think you should tell your opponent before the game if you are about to use a program as a "coach". Otherwise, your opponent thinks he´s playing against a human and that is wrong IMO. Mogens, what do you mean when you say you are against computer program "rights" in general ? Alvaro
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.