Author: Albert Silver
Date: 15:25:49 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
>>I think it is easy to make an argument that permanent memory is written
>>material. If you store a openingbook on your harddrive it is written material in
>>my view. Its there to read for anyone with a PC to connetc to the HD. :-) And as
>>such against the rules!
>
>I have no problem with rules that limit the hardware.
>
>You can decide that the program should use only memory in the RAM of the
>computer but you cannot practically prevent programs to use opening book.
>
>opening book can be stored in the RAM and not in the HD.
>
>I think that for the future it may be interesting to make limitations about the
>hardware of the computers.
>
>Most humans have no chance against the top programs on the new hardware so if we
>want to see interesting comp-human games also in 2020 we should decide
>that for Fide tournaments the hardware that is allowed is only the palm of
>today.
>
>Another option is to make rules that allow humans to use notes and to use books
>during the game and another option is to use slower time control.
>
>I see no reason to decide that 2 hours/40 moves is the slowest time control in
>human-computer game and it is possible to decide about slower time control(I
>remember that 2.5 hours/40 moves or 2 hours/24 moves was used in the past).
>
>Another option is to allow both sides to take back moves but they lose time in
>the clock for their opponent after every take back so they cannot take back
>moves forever.
>
>It is going to be a fair game because the computers can also get the right to
>take back moves(today they do not use it but if there is going to be a serious
>game with the right to take back then I expect programmers to implement that
>option and also to teach their program to take back moves when they need it).
You have to look further than that to realize the impossibility of this (not to
mention ridicule). I won't restate that machines don't *compete* so you are
basically try to outrace a fancy calculator no matter how much joy and emotional
stress that may give you. You can do the same by racing automatic motorcycles.
*You* may be competing, but it certainly is not. It's just a machine.
Still, let's suppose we handicap the hardware to something that is within human
reach. Let's say we do this now, and set the maximum to..... 500 MHz and 128 Mb
of Ram. We estimate then that the programs are performing at roughly 2500-2550
Elo. The exact value is unimportant so don't start arguing it is more or less.
Fine. So we let the machines in knowing they won't possibly do better than that
unless the humans playing it get careless. Then there is the opening book. What
do we do about that? If you limit it too much, players will be able to clearly
outbook the machine, but let's suppose a number of moves is found and accepted.
Fine.
So for 5 years, the programs continue to progress in quality, always exploiting
their limited hardware, and they play at 2650 now. So after 5 years, the
programs are once more unacceptably strong, and talk of banning them is once
more heard by the players, so we reduce the hardware to 400 MHz. Ah! *Now* they
can play in our events. Why? Because we are assured they won't perform over 2550
Elo. Our top brass still shine in comparison. Ah!...
In 20 years, the hardware is only 350 MHz (software writers are running short of
ideas to continue improving software that exploits the ever DECREASING hardware
limits) and the machines must be custom made since no one really makes such
absurdly slow processors anymore. Even the latest Casio wristwatch goes faster
than that! BUT, we can STILL beat the machines. Ah!...
Looks and sounds terribly silly doesn't it? That's where it would lead to. If
you limit the hardware to not allow a performance beyond a certain point, what
exactly are you achieving?
Albert
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.