Author: Alois Ganter
Date: 08:59:05 05/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>So after entering White's Bd3 move, the 1750 player positions his mouse on the >>screen in a way which says "Lower the evaluation for a blocked pawn chain!". >>Maybe he is off by 0.2 pawns with his judgement but he will not lose. If the >>program sees that it will win a piece with c5-c4, it will play it anyway. > >I think this would fit any of the following: > >1. there are so many features you would want to tell the program about, >the chance of getting it _wrong_ would outweigh the benefit, and overall the >engine would play worse. > >2. It is not easy to say "ignore this" or "watch that". Such code would >cause more problems than it would be worth. > >I think a human _can_ tell a program to take longer when necessary, or "don't >play the best move you have shown so far" but going further is non-trivial. And >would probably lose more than it wins. Yes, I begin to understand what you mean. >> >>> >>>And yes, there is always the potential for cheating, for those that are so >>>inclined. I'm not sure how they get away with it however, since others can >>>eventually use the same (or similar) engine and find out that it won't reproduce >>>the move played.. >>> >> >>Nope, those versions would never get published, only a couple of months after >>the tournament, when everybody has forgotten about it. >> > >Would be very hard for me to do... Thats the reason why we like Crafty. > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Manual operation opens a pandora box of disturbing unfairplay which the other >>>>program cannot defend against. It should e.g. be strictly forbidden to operate >>>>chess software with a mouse during important matches. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Why? Do you also propose playing the match in a room surrounded by steel mesh >>>to block radio transmission? I could influence an autoplayer game just as >>>easily if I wanted so you have to block RF stuff, IR stuff, even high-frequency >>>audio stuff. >> >>No, you can't. You do not have access to the machines on which the match is >>played. So you cannot help the program from the outside because you cannot build >>in a receiver. Unless you bring your own special hardware to a tournament where >>you operate yourself... > > >It is very common for programmers to bring hardware. Mine will have an IR >receiver in it that I can use from a seat somewhere in the room. IE if you >had asked for a match with Crafty vs a GM, you would probably not be able >to get a good quad xeon machine yourself, or maybe an 8=way alpha machine. >You would have to rely on _somebody_ to get the machine for you (whether it >is me or not is immaterial) and that person can be an accomplice in setting up >the remote control stuff. > > > > >> >>And if you try to simply disturb the program or the protocol by irradiating RF >>stuff it will show it in its logs or crash or whatsoever. > >Not if _I_ write the program it won't. > That makes me curious and it goes beyond my technical understanding. If we put the machine into some strong field would not the operating system suffer equally? How can I selectively influence one single process? > > >> >>> >>>Oh yes, humans have a tendency to cheat as well, so the opponent has to also >>>be cut off from the outside world... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>On the other hand every program can trivially defend against abusing input from >>>>an autoplayer interface. No human interference, no cheating. >>> >>> >>>It isn't as "trivial" as you think... >> >>Why not? It is certainly easier than writing a decent Internet firewall. If the >>opponent sends something you do not like, e.g. a takeback command during a game >>you simply log a warning message on the screen: "Opponent sent takeback" and >>ignore it. > >Simple... I simply flood your machine with autoplay messages. Even if you >ignore them, I can soak the machine with interrupts... > But can't you log on the screen in big letters "Help, opponent is flooding me with autoplay messages!!" Independent tester would notice and publish the abusive behaviour. Anyway, thanks for the interesting arguments, Alois > > >> >>My conclusion is that autoplaying is safe and fair because the program has full >>control about whats happening to it, while manual is an invitation to abuse. > > >You are ignoring the human opponent. How do you prevent _him_ from cheating? >It _has_ already happened in more than one major tournament. > > >> >>Unless it is limited to typing in moves in an e2-e4 style. But even the rhythm >>of typing could transmit one or two crucial bits of information to the program. > > >Certainly... cheating is impossible to prevent. Casinos have been trying for >years. They have not succeeded yet.
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.