Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 04:47:59 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2002 at 03:44:01, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Kasparov agreed to the conditions. He played a previous version before. He thought it would be a cake walk. It wasn't. Besides, the machine was not ready until just before the match. It really was not even finished, and it still won. > >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.