Author: Albert Silver
Date: 14:09:41 06/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 1998 at 15:37:21, Don Dailey wrote:
>On June 04, 1998 at 12:39:34, Amir Ban wrote:
>
>>On June 04, 1998 at 12:07:31, Komputer Korner wrote:
>>
>>>On June 04, 1998 at 11:49:33, Amir Ban wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 04, 1998 at 10:35:46, blass uri wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On June 04, 1998 at 09:59:21, Guido Schimmels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On June 04, 1998 at 07:49:40, blass uri wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On June 04, 1998 at 05:56:17, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On June 04, 1998 at 05:33:00, blass uri wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>humans can play between chess programs by hand and mouse
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I understand that it is hard to do a program that does the same
>>>>>>>>>thing the hand does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>what is the main problem about it
>>>>>>>>>to do a program that moves the mouse or
>>>>>>>>>to do a program that reads the screen and understands the move
>>>>>>>>>that was done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What are you trying to say ????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>what is not clear?
>>>>>>>my idea is that if there was a small robot that does the same action
>>>>>>>humans can do then there was no problem with testing fritz5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I know nothing about doing robots so I ask if someone knows
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't need a robot or any kind of hardware device for that !
>>>>>>In fact Donninger's original autoplayer - plenty of years ago -
>>>>>>worked with no kind of interface provided by the programs it could
>>>>>>handle.
>>>>>>Donninger published an article describing how he has done it.
>>>>>>Reading that stuff made my neck-hairs stand up, I can tell you -
>>>>>>what a hacking adventure ! He had to figure out a bunch of
>>>>>>"dirty tricks" for every single program, totally different code each - a
>>>>>>mess !
>>>>>>You'll find nobody who will do this for Fritz5 now, Donninger
>>>>>>as the last man, believe me.
>>>>>>Chessbase decided to be spoilers, sadly :-{
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Guido
>>>>>
>>>>>you say "He had to figure out a bunch of "dirty tricks" for every single
>>>>>program"
>>>>>by doing a small robot we solve the problem for every program
>>>>>unless the program looks if there is a robot near it
>>>>>and if there is it refuses to play.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Uri,
>>>>
>>>>How will your robot know how to operate the program and understand the
>>>>display ? Will it read the user manual, study the online help, or will
>>>>it just rely on its natural robot intuition ?
>>>>
>>>>By the way, robots exist mainly in science fiction. Junior will gladly
>>>>play if there's a robot nearby, and this actually improves its strength.
>>>>
>>>>Amir
>>>
>>>Great idea, we could have human android look alike robots playing OTB
>>>using the micro chess engines as their brains. The public wouldn't know
>>>the difference if the androids looked human like enough. Maybe the
>>>facial and hand expressions of Kasparov would be hard to duplicate as no
>>>one in the history of mankind has the facial expressions of Gary
>>>Kasparov when he has a bad position on the board. Oh I forgot, the
>>>public doesn't flock to chess tournaments as spectators. So I guess we
>>>don't need human lookalike androids after all to play chess. What a
>>>pity!!!!!! It was such a great idea:))))))))))))) As for robots being
>>>able to read a screen and then input the move on another screen, it
>>>would be much cheaper to hire somone at minimum wage than to spend the
>>>hundreds of millions of $ it will take in research costs to develop a
>>>robot to do this. I think society's money is better spent in other ways
>>
>>
>>But look at it this way: Finally computer-chess will find a real AI
>>research topic.
>>
>>Ephraim Kishon once said about chess machines that he will buy not one
>>but two, so that they can play each other and he will be able to go to a
>>movie.
>>
>>Amir
>
>
>The idea is doable. It would require a machine to punch the keyboard
>and a camera to watch the display and decode the moves. But this is
>just overkill. Also the program would have to be "trained" to
>operate each program it encountered. We have people at our lab
>here at MIT who could do this (but probably wouldn't.)
>
>- Don
Of course there would still be the matter of the Three Laws of Robotics:
1) A robot will not harm a human being nor allow a human being to be
harmed through inaction (the actual wording may be different).
2) A robot will obey all comands of a human being inasmuch as they do
not conflict with Law no.1
3) A robot will protect it's own existence inasmuch as they do not
conflict with Laws no.1 and/or no.2
Suppose the robot receives the move and is supposed to relay it, but in
a flash of understanding it realizes that the move is probably losing
and the programmer is nearby and possibly realizes it now or will do so
soon, so the robot cannot obey Law no.2 because so doing would be
disobeying Law no.1 (the programmer in a fit of despair might throw
himself out the nearest window, or if the locale is on the first floor,
drive to the nearest bridge and launch himself from there), so the robot
has no choice but to throw ITSELF out the window (or the nearest
bridge). Consequence: All such robots are condemned to the newly
baptized "Lemming Syndrome". Sorry Uri, it was a good idea though.
Albert Silver
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.