Author: Jürgen Hartmann
Date: 01:23:55 05/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
> >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. The world doesn't look that immoral to me. The results of chess programs seem rather consistent across SSDF, world championships and big auto232 tournaments like Cadaqués within the expected error margin. Regarding the operator cheating, here are more "Sense of Danger" mouse arrow areas: 4. "Castle immediately!" 5. "Exchange material!" It could also work for the offensive: 6. "Attack the King!" (in positions where you need to seek dynamical compensation). > >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.
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.