Author: Alois Ganter
Date: 01:09:05 05/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2001 at 02:49:34, Uri Blass wrote: >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. For cheating in computer tournaments with human operators one should not play advanced chess. Its sufficient that the human "sense of danger" is superior to nowadays programs and can avoid many losses without the need for the human to calculate a single line. Telling the program when to consolidate rather than to take further risks makes a huge difference. 1. Say you have an area on your screen which means "Do not take any more material. Consolidate! Defend your King! Retreat! Repair your pawn structure". 2. Another screen area could be "Watch out for passed pawns!". 3. Against humans: "Do not block the pawn chain!". If you smell danger, you put your mouse arrow into that area after entering the opponent move. Maybe your judgement is wrong. No problem. The only risk is that the program plays passively. But it would also lose much less games. Taking the vanities and the ruthlessness of some of the chess companies here into account judging by the ugly way they fight in public, it looks like they are prepared to do anything to win important tournaments. That should not be allowed. So I personally prefer results from automatic matches. As an alternative the rules for human operators should be much more strict than they are now. > > >>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 Ed had problems because of a faulty DOS driver not written by himself. Under Windows it should be different. I work in Internet server development and see it as a firewall analogy. Autoplaying by serial interface means that you can completely control the input to your program. If you do not like the input, you behave like a brave little firewall: log it for your admin and ignore it.
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.