Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:36:59 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 16:24:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 15:05:26, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>Rolf, >> >>In the interest of clarity, if it was up to you, what would be the rules for a >>human versus computer chess match? >> >>Matt > >First and basic Law: > >Chess programming does always mean being honest about the actual strength of the >program/machine entity. So impostering should be forbidden already out of >self-respect. All tricks which are meant to exercise psychological confusion >should be regarded as insult against computer chess itself. > >Consquence: > >That means by logic that all the Wch shows and super GM hype "bye-bye" from now >on. There are plente of strong IM and experts who would be glad to play the >machines. It is not clear what you mean by "show" and "hype" as applies to the rules of a match. > >Second Law: > >Opening books should never contain lines a program can't "understand" simply >because the key is too deep in the tree. So also such pretension should be >regarded as insult against the moral of CC. This one seems impractical. I play openings all the time that I don't understand. Should I not be allowed to play them in a match? Anyway, how could such a thing be policed? How would an arbiter know if the program "understands" an opening or not? You want the program to play with no book? > >(NB that I'm not being asked for giving my specific ideas for new chess topics >in CC programming. But I think that the ideas of Roay are fantastic. I saw that >Ed already agreed although he's the famous addict of night long autoplayer games >instead of human vs comp test.) > > >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.