Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:31:46 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 20:11:58, martin fierz wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 19:25:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On October 11, 2002 at 23:26:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>You keep bringing this up, so here's a challenge: >>> >>>Formulate a rule (or rules) governing opening book knowledge. The rule has to >>>be fair >>>to both players (computer and human) and the rule _must_ be enforcable or it >>>will be >>>useless. >>> >>>What would you like to see and why? >>>\ >> >>First of all I know that I can't formulate such rules. I see you already in the >>starting blocks to prove the impossibility. Just the same debate we had in the >>topic about the prevention of cheating. >> >>Let me make a little proposal. Why we together couldn't find a solution? This is >>not a court room. Why do you want to work against solutions? >> >>Another point: why is it so difficult to understand the strength of a concept >>that says, let's find a solution for a honest CC. Without all the fishy tricks. >>A ouple of hours ago I read a quote from Feng Hsu who said naively that chess >>should well be about some secrecy on both sides... > >there is nothing wrong with this. his quote was IIRC that a computer-human match >should be like a human-human match, with some "secrets for both sides". what he >means is that in a normal human-human match, the opponents prepare for the match >in secret, then show up and try to surprise their opponent. like kramnik playing >the berlin defence against kasparov in their match. >that is what he meant, and that is perfectly ok. > >aloha > martin But that is not ok if we are talking about little Fritz vs Kramnik or DB2&team against Kasparov. NB that the conditions enforced by Kramnik were a consequence out of the events in the Kasparov event. Rolf Tueschen > >> >>But I disagree. I hope you can follow when I say that you won't beat the >>creativity of human players with all your machines. Yes? So why not accept that >>you are not there to invent sophisticated tricks to beat human players with your >>machines but that you should your work as scientists. I'm talking to you as well >>as Hsu! >> >>Somehow it seems to me that you had a perverted understanding of science. >> >>You should develop machines that are sophisticated at chess, but not >>sophisticated tricks to psych out human opponents! Tell me what you would reply. >> >>I think we must make a real ethical revolution in CC to stop that nonsense about >>the dream that suddenly 1800 or weaker operators or programmers (I'm not talking >>about you in person) could bet super GM just with the support of machines. That >>is not the concept of CC I would prefer. Because then we are right back in the >>middle of new cheats! I think Hsu made an beautiful unconscious confession. He >>likes the secrecy and the tricks... >> >>But as we could see in Bahrain, the whole hyperbole is unbelievable. Because >>Fritz can't play such positions yet Kramnik presented in games 1 to 4. And >>probably DB2 wouldn't have done better. >> >>Let me make this very clear. Say, we had a really strong chess playing machine >>in 20 years - - _then_ that monster would hopefully have a few tricks on its own >>to play a match against the human Wch. Know what I mean? But today I do not want >>to see one Hsu or one Friedel play such tricky games. That's ridiculous in my >>eyes. So I hope I could make clear what I want. I do also dream of a fantastic >>computer playing fantastic chess. But I detest tricky operators using some >>tricks to psych out the GM. That might be real fun for them personally, but this >>is not what I expected from scientists. >> >>Could we agree so far and find new solutions for definitions how machines should >>be supported along the FIDE rules? Or is it impossible to talk with you because >>you just prefer to fight the old stuff again when you were a young student and >>had the impression that you had to find certain rules made on the CC level >>alone. If you want to cooperate then you should think about the FIDE rules. And >>then it's not really a help if you or other people try to define me as the >>representative of some evil force who would like to harm CC... >> >>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.