Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:44:01 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2002 at 00:55:20, Matthew Hull wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 20:31:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. > > > >It has always seemed to me that the objections to the DB2/kasparov match were >not reasonable, and that the current match conditions were an attempt to correct >a problem that never existed in the first place. As a result, the attempts to >fix a non-existant problem has resulted in a ridiculous match that no one is >happy with (except maybe me. Poetic justice.). Ultimately, comparisons of the >DB2 match and the DF match will reveal that DB's power was truely scary and DF's >was not. Kasparov was frightened by DB2 (and for good reason). Kramnik is not >afraid of DF. Kasparov will not be afraid of his next computer opponent. The main problem is that kasparov knew nothing about the opponent. He had no previous games of the opponent when he has previous games of human opponents. Fair conditions mean that DB2 first play games against other opponents. Kasaprov have games of Junior from the last months(when Junior won the computer world championship) when kasparov did not have games of deeper blue from 1997 when it had to prove itself against computers or humans Uri
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.