Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:41:47 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 13:20:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 13:04:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 11, 2002 at 12:36:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On October 11, 2002 at 09:05:31, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>It's no different than human world champion contenders analysing with the aid of >>>>their human or computer helpers to adjust play between games in a match. >>>> >>>>Program tweaking during a match does not make the program stronger, it just >>>>adjusts it's play to the particular opponent, JUST LIKE HUMANS DO. >>>> >>>>I think your argument is not logical. >>>> >>> >>>You think? Let's see. >>> >>>HUMAN PLAYER: Known for years, then decades, playing style and strong and weak >>>points well known, impossible to play like someone else, opening choice in a >>>certain realm, surprises possible, but then with pro and con aspects (perhaps >>>more aspects) >>> >>>MACHINE PLAYER: always new versions, theoretically with always new style, so >>>that no tendence could be seen and exploited, that would be no problem IF it was >>>for more than 5 or 8 games only, the general limiation by the overall depth can >>>be exploited, but only after some training, the same for the huge opening books >>>for an absolutely new player, so without training and allowance to tweak and >>>twist the complete personality, always with the same high-class GM books, that >>>is nonsense in the end to play little show matches with only few games >>> >>>And you want to insinuate that humans play on that same base their chess? You >>>bet! >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >>You are falling into a deep abyss now. Because you want to make humans and >>computers >>"equivalent" and that is simply impossible, particularly when we know so little >>about the >>"human chess player and how he does what he does." >> >>Much of the "fairness" has to come by analogy, because the two players (man and >>machine) >>have so very little in common. In fact, all they do have in common is the >>ability to move chess >>pieces around on a board according to proscribed rules... Arguing about opening >>books, endgame >>tables, adjustments during the game, are all things that simply have no common >>ground in the >>two players... > >(Bob, do something against the ugly picture of your postings!!! thxs) I hope you meant to say, "Bob, fix that funky word wrap thing that's going on in your posts". > >You are right!! But what is the consequence? To leave it to the programmers to >exploit the chaos they have to take all the responsibility for? Who had the time >since the beginning 60s for sound definitions? NB we are talking about comp vs >human. In comp comp you can continue to do whatever you want. > >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.