Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:33:53 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 12:48:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 12:13:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>Of course I know the simulating thing, Tim, but I cannot understand why "we", >>computerchess people, programmers and their programs should try to simulate >>being GM without respecting the normal FIDE rules of chess! Why human >>chessplayers can't read out of books during a game of chess too? Because, I got >>the answer, opening books are not books, they are integral constituent of a >>machine. Ahar... >> > > > >Please take this argument _elsewhere_. It is old. It is repetitive. And >it serves absolutely no purpose. And it has nothing to do with current >computer chess approaches or rules. I am interested in the games between comps and human chessplayers. If this would be old or purposeless then I ask why the human players in the Dutch Championships reacted so upset with different methods of obstruction? I would like to see that computerchess would be reformed so that fair games against human players could be made possible again. > >Or perhaps it _does_ serve your purpose of stirring acrimonious debate. > >CCC is not the place for such nonsense. Tread lightly... > Is the notion "nonsense" your opinion or the verdict of a moderator? I had understanding if you said that I could not make propositions for technical details in computerchess, but why do you want to forbid a whole topic? If it's nothing new for you, perhaps others might be interested in the intended reformation? > > > >>For me the development of computerchess took a wrong course. For me a >>self-learning system playing chess could be a better symbol of AI than the >>package which is simply not following the FIDE rules of chess. I'm talking about >>games between human players and comps. What were the reasons for the programmers >>to take the forbidden short cut? >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >There is no "forbidden shortcut" being taken. Feel free to cite the rule >that is being broken. Many will then feel free to show you how your >interpretation of said rule is mistaken. Quotation from FIDE rules: ========================== (a) During play, the players are forbidden to make use of hand-written, printed or otherwise recorded matter, or to analyse the game on another chessboard. They are also forbidden to have recourse to the advice of a third party, whether solicited or not. [The only possible exception is that a player in a team competition may be allowed to ask his captain "Should I accept his offer of a draw?" or "Does the team need me to play for a win?". The captain or acting-captain must limit his reply to an immediate "Yes", "No", or "It's up to you", without supplying his answer after a detailed analysis of the position, and without making his answer emphatic in any way. This captain, like all his players, is not allowed to receive opinions, from any source, on the states of play of any games still in progress] . (b) The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is also forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the moves and the times on the clocks. (c) No analysis is permitted in the playing rooms during play or during resumption sessions. (d) It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes the persistent offering of a draw. End of quotes ============================= In the other part of the discussion you wrote, I quote: "Let me clarify the argument against that statement: "there is no currently existing in FIDE or USCF rules that prevent memorization of long seqauences of opening moves." Never has been, never will be. So the argument is totally moot. As shown by the USCF allowing computers to play in rated events for 40 years. FIDE even allowed them for a period of time..." End of the quote. ================================= Now we have a clear contradiction between the official FIDE rules and your statement about memorization. Note, that the book line are not memorized days or hours before a game. The book is in use DURING a game. Now, let's take a look into the rules: "During play, the players are forbidden to make use of hand-written, printed or otherwise recorded matter, or to analyse the game on another chessboard." DURING play it's forbidden! QED Now, we have still another problem, I know of. Nowhere FIDE defines exactly what it understands under a computer program or a chess computer. This is not untypical for our social life. Institutions often tend to act on demand. They react but don't act with juridical laws in advance. FIDE and the national societies simply forbade the participation of computers in its team championships. Period. Now it's NOT FIDE who should change the rules, it would be our task in computerchess for trying to establish a different reality by transformating our historical concept about chess programs and computers. So, if you write that no rules exist against, but in reality computerchess is forbidden in official championchips and you are not interested in the re-entry, we surely cannot debate successfully. My purpose is that computerchess could again take part. Please try to show a little tolerance for the small chance of perhaps finding a consense for new methods and regulations in computerchess. If however in the CCC you definded such trials as most unwanted, because nobody would be interested in such participation in human tournaments I'd surely accept such politics. I'm not debating to disturb but to find solutions for computerchess lovers. The decision lies in the power of you programmers anyway. But it's strange. Recent matches between human players and comps showed me that the interest among programmers is great to get such chances too. Also the so called amateur programmers. Of course I agree that it's looking strange that you seem to have closed this chapter for you and I - without possession of own program - try to find out of a dead-end of computerchess. If you could demonstrate that a discussion is really moot because no change whatever could influence FIDE and the organizers of the tournaments, then we can all save precious time, here I agree with you. Rolf Tueschen
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.