Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:49:34 04/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2001 at 02:10:40, Alois Ganter wrote: >> >> >>This is why we don't autoplay _important_ matches. > >Doesn't sound encouraging for AI development: Recommending human interference. > >A strong chess player can point out obvious dangers to a chess program during >the game. E.g. by discreetly adjusting the rest position of his mouse arrow >during moves. Say the program grabbed a pawn and now desperately needs to >consolidate instead of going for more material. Any 1800 player can judge that >better than nowadays top programs. I doubt if 1800 players can be productive and I suspect that they cannot be productive in 90% of the games. 1800 player may also judge worse than the top programs and be counter productive. There was an open tournament some monthes ago when everybody could play(programs,humans or teams of human and programs) I remember that Rebel century3 won the tournament and not the humans who used computers to help them. I think it is going to be interesting to see a tournament when the players are teams of the programmer and the program. It will be interesting to know in how many cases the programmers are going to reject a computer move. >On the other hand every program can trivially defend against abusing input from >an autoplayer interface. No human interference, no cheating. I suspect that it is not so simple. I remember that Ed had a lot of problems with it and I also remember strange things with the autoplayer. 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.