Author: Alastair Scott
Date: 13:48:01 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 14:48:26, Russell Reagan wrote: >On October 19, 2002 at 14:00:03, Dana Turnmire wrote: > >>True but to make it truly fair shouldn't a GM be allowed access to an opening >>book also? The computer is allowed to play it perfectly because it written down >>and the computer is sitting there reading from its book whereas the human must >>rely strictly on memory. > >The computer is using it's memory too. The computer can just "remember" a lot >more, and remembers everything perfectly. Remember, a hard disk is just another >form of memory. It's just slower than RAM. If you arne't allowed to look up >things from the hard drive, then you shouldn't be allowed to look up things in >RAM either, in which case computer chess would cease to exist. > >It seems like you're saying that books shouldn't be allowed just because the >computer can "remember" better than humans. So we should handicap computers to >make it "fair"? That doens't sound "fair" to me. The computers can also look at >a lot more positions than humans. Should we restrict computers to 1 move per >second to make it "fair"? Indeed, but endgame tablebases are a different matter; the winning sequences are often so far beyond the capabilities of the human mind, and are quite often so counter-intuitive (as some of John Nunn's researches have found, for example), I would have real qualms about using them in a human-computer match. Your argument is good but I feel that, with tablebases, the issues of fairness raised with respect to opening books are so enormously magnified they can't be ignored. Alastair
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.