Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:42:16 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 16:36:59, Matthew Hull wrote: >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? Aha... you reach the "essence" of the issue. :) > > >> >>(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.