Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 11:12:41 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
It's stupid to make a rule that the human must have the program, in its entirety, three months in advance. The problem is not that they'll be able to figure out engine play, but rather that they will be able to figure out the opening book. If you give me an afternoon with a non-learning program, any non-learning program, there is a good chance that I'll be able to find a shallow spot in the book and either win or attain a winning position at blitz chess, before the afternoon is over, and I'm by no means a GM. A GM could do the same thing, of course, and if were extremely motivated financially, it is very likely that they would do it. Heck, it's very possible that they'd simply hire a second to do it for them, and simply walk into the tournament hall with a memorized "answer" that they didn't even invent themselves. And people talk about *computers* having an unfair advantage. So if it were me, the only way I'd agree to this is if I could provide them with a book other than the one I were to use. Regarding solving it for good, the only ways to solve it for good are: 1) Create a program so strong, with such a well-debugged book, that it can win or draw with any position in its opening book. 2) Failing the first item, create a program that has a low liklihood of playing the same middlegame twice. If there are several moves that are roughly the same, the program has to have a good chance of playing any of them -- it can't play the same one every time. 3) Get the humans to stop demanding this kind of disclosure. Once again we have DB to thank for this, since DB gave Kasparov *nothing*. I think that the authors should be willing to give the humans *something*, but not *everything*. I haven't read Stefan's stuff yet, so perhaps I'm missing something, but there you go. bruce On April 19, 2001 at 11:48:08, Christophe Theron wrote: >Hi CCC! > > > >Life is so fun! > >I had a great time today reading the comments of Stefan and all the answers >(yesterday was No Computer Day for me, so I did not read the forum). > >What do I read? I read that one of the main reasons to withdraw from the Kramnik >challenge (not the only one to be honnest) is the fact that the program must be >sent to the player three months before the match. > >Wow! So the player is going to prepare for three months, and because of this >even a player weaker than Kramnik would be able to crush the computer. > >Ach so! > >And EVERYBODY is following up by comments like: > >X: this is unacceptable. > > Y: yes, this match is a joke. > > Z: of course, everything has been done so Kramnik will win easily. > > X (again): I told you! Of course Stefan HAD to withdraw after this. > > Y: yes, this condition is an insult! > > W: of course, now we know who has killed JFK. > > > >:) :) :) > >That's incredible. Everybody is jumping into the trap without even THINKING. > > >How should I call that? Disinformation, Lack of information, Deep Sleep, >Collective Hypnosis? > >OK, let's go for LACK OF IMAGINATION. > > >Guys, we are faced with a PROBLEM: the player will have access to the program 3 >months before the match. > >So let's find a SOLUTION! > >I won't go into Deep Details here, but let me tell you that I can easily write a >program that nobody could ever prepare against, especially given the (known) >conditions of the match. > >You do not have to be a chess programmer to know how to do that. > > >OK, let's see if somebody can come up with a decent solution to this problem. >Please, show me that you are not all deeply asleep and try to find creative >solution(s). There are actually many ways to solve the problem. > > > >Guys, have you seen the movie "The Matrix"? Do you remember? > > > > **** FREE YOUR MIND **** > > > > > Christophe
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.