Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:15:53 06/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2001 at 08:09:04, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On June 23, 2001 at 06:34:43, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>If people want to say that computers cheat or whatever, who cares. There's no >>way around this, and that's the intent of people who say this. Fine, computers >>cheat, because they can't grab a piece with their fingers, compose a sonnet, be >>emotionally touched by a baby's smile, or go potty. Stipulated. I don't care. >> >>I think blind people cheat, too. Blind people shouldn't be allowed to play >>chess unless they move the pieces themselves, and the touch move rule still >>applies. And since they can't see the board, and they can't touch the pieces, >>they have to figure out where their opponent moved by *sound* and *smell*. If >>they can't do this, tough luck, because lord knows that the game of chess is >>completely destroyed unless you reach out and touch the piece with your own >>fingers. >> >>By the way, there are FIDE rules for blind people, and the computers play by >>them. A blind person can have a person there who helps them move pieces, and >>tells them where things have been moved. > >That is what you might call the cheapo defence. Of course there's no real >problem with computers being unable to move pieces around. The real issue is >external aids like opening books and endgame tables. It's cheating according to >FIDE rules no matter how you look at it. And also with my understanding of >computer chess. Computer chess is a program capable of calculating chess moves >from start to finish period. That may be a naive and silly layman's definition, >but I think it makes intuitive sense. So Tapio is essentially right. No he isn't. What do you do with a program that has a huge array with all chess moves precomputed and just copied from the array when it is time to generate moves for a specific piece on a specific square. IE Carl Ebeling's thesis "all the right moves" was based on hardware that did just this. What about hundreds of evaluation "patterns" that are stored directly in the program and matched when an evaluation is done. And finally, what about humans that have memorized thousands or tens (or hundreds) of thousands of moves and can recite them back perfectly? > >Does that mean that output can't be stored and that external files are >forbidden? No, it doesn't mean that. A learning chess program makes perfect >sense compared to the human conception of chess. My imagination may not be that >extensive, but I can imagine a program learning opening moves, positional >patterns and piece values through experience. That already exists AFAIK. So why >cheat? And let's avoid the "You can't check it anyway , so it's mute.." >argument. > >Mogens. If crafty could simply use every game it has ever played, and I have most of them, that would make a formidable book. But I don't see why that would be any more acceptable than looking at what others have played, unless the GMs are given the same limitation.
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.