Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:07:09 11/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2002 at 07:41:04, pavel wrote: >On November 10, 2002 at 04:00:55, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 10, 2002 at 01:09:44, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 2002 at 00:11:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>I don't see how you could use my PV to predict anything. I have already played >>>>my move before I kibitz my PV, so how will you use it? >>> >>>For example, I play 1. e4 against Crafty. Crafty thinks (no book) and replies >>>with 1. ... d5, and gives the PV line: >>> >>>11 22.98 0.34 1. ... d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. dxc6 >>> Nxc6 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. d4 e6 >>> >>>Now my program takes this, and now my program knows that you're program is going >>>to ponder 2. exd5 (if that's of any use to me), and I can have a pretty good >>>idea that next time Crafty is going to play 2. ... Nf6, since that is what was >>>in the PV line. When I tried this manually, Crafty plays Nf6 like I thought, so >>>I would have pondered the correct move because of what you kibitzed. >>> >>>Maybe I could go ahead and assume that several of the moves in the PV are going >>>to be correct, and I'll start my search from 1. ... d5 2. exd5 Nf6 and get an >>>extra ply or two. So now I'm pondering almost every move you play correctly, and >>>I've got a few plies of extra search if it turns out that I can assume the first >>>few moves of the PV will be what you play, which it probably will. >>> >>>I'd like to know if this is possible with the current kibitzing requirement. If >>>it is, I think that's one of the worst rules I've ever heard of. My engine could >>>probably do something with the score you kibitz too. Maybe search longer if your >>>engine thinks it's better. Maybe it sees something I don't, so I'll search a >>>little longer. Or maybe, since I don't like this rule, my engine's PV's will be >>>1 move long, always, and my scores will be on some absurd scale, and in base 26. >> >>I do not expect programmers to waste many hours of programming only for >>cheating. >> >>It is better to spend the time on developing your program. >> >>The rules are supposed to prevent simple cheating when no special programming >>effort was used for it. >> >>Simple cheating can happen when the game is played manually and the programmer >>can help his program to play better by changing it's time management. >> >>Uri > >Now, I agree with you and Robert on this one. >But perhaps the point I am trying to make is that it will most likely result in >some interesting program to not perticipate in the tournament. >Most likely chessbase programs and programmers who don't care about winboard >protocol won't be able to participate. Nothing requires winboard. IE Amir had his own custom interface. Bruce did the same. I can't imagine a program today that can't play chess on a chess server, since it is a really sought-after feature. IE chesspartner for Tiger, etc... > >I would also like to see a tournament with as less room for cheating as >possible, but not at the cost of interesting, new participants. > >I would have to say, before going on making a rule like this, atleast a >reasonable time should be given to the programmer so that atleast they can work >or implementing the required features. > They _have_ had a reasonable amount of time. :) This has been an obvious feature for _years_. >If the tournament starts on JAN, I personally don't think it's enough time. > >pavs > >ps, perhaps interesting to know that, if I am not an author of a chess program >does it mean I have no say on the possible rules of the tournament? > >Just a thought. I don't think that the programmers should "rule the roost". However, we have a lot more experience on the internals of such events and know more about the problems that can be expected, etc. That is the main reason that at ICCA events programmers have a meeting prior to round one to iron out last minute issues.
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.