Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:48:05 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 13:41:47, Matthew Hull wrote: >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". Yes. Please do not explain the obvious. We have readers of the Yellow Press too. :) > > >> >>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 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.