Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:40:08 11/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2002 at 21:15:37, Bob Durrett wrote: >On November 10, 2002 at 21:04:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 10, 2002 at 13:12:18, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 2002 at 13:01:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 10, 2002 at 04:22:16, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 09, 2002 at 22:31:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 09, 2002 at 17:42:07, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 09, 2002 at 17:22:49, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The rule proposal is not random, but based on experience. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm just saying that the rule proposal does nothing to prevent anyone from >>>>>>>cheating, and it also acts in a counter-productive manner by preventing some >>>>>>>people from participating. So, it's a matter of whether you want to add the pro >>>>>>>with the con, or have neither. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Russell >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>There is no way to _prevent_ cheating. But one significant problem we had >>>>>>in the past was a programmer using a manual interface while in book, then >>>>>>switching to automatic after out of book. The excuse "my interface won't work >>>>>>with a book" is pure nonsense, it just lets the human choose the opening lines >>>>>>as he wishes. >>>>>> >>>>>>If we require kibitzing time, score and PV, it will be very hard for an operator >>>>>>to make the program play a different move while keeping the scores and PV in a >>>>>>consistent state. It won't eliminate it, but it will make it harder. >>>>> >>>>>What score and PV do you display while in book then? >>>> >>>>I display a score of <book> and the PV contains the book move and the >>>>most popular book response to that move. But the main point is that I >>>>play that move _instantly_. No manual operator can do that... >>>> >>>> >>>>>There is no output from my engine while in book, I don't see what information >>>>>could be relevant, perhaps statistics on how often the chosen moves are played, >>>>>but that is no trivial matter to implement (and I would find it rather boring to >>>>>be honest, so hopefully no rule about that). >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't see any reason to kibitz or whisper something while in book. When >>>>two programs are in book for 10-20 moves, who could follow kibitzing at that >>>>speed anyway? :) >>> >>>This may seem a bit radical, but do you expect to have any human observers of >>>these games? If you do, then let me suggest a counter-intuitive idea: >> >>Yes. First, I will be observing the game(s) Crafty plays in. And I will >>also be observing other games that are interesting. But more importantly, at >>the previous CCT events, we have had _plenty_ of non-programmers watching and >>asking questions about "what is it thinking, what is the eval, etc." >> >>> >>>Deliberately make both engines delay exactly one minute between moves while they >>>are still in opening book. >>> >>>OK, there may be a few practical objections. >>> >>>But, for the sake of the observers, it would be a nice feature since the >>>observers would have a chance to think about and discuss the opening moves. >> >>Can't disagree, the problem is that we are playing using the ICC clock, >>and that would mean the programs are getting zinged for time that they are >>really not using... > >I am not up to speed on "the ICC clock." Does that clock have a programmer >associated with it? Maybe what I'm suggesting could be done in time for your >event? No. The "clock" is just a software chess clock maintained by ICC. When it is your move, your clock runs, when you send a move your clock stops and your opponent's clock runs. Having this clock "stop" would really introduce lots of strange issues... > >What I'm saying is that "ICC" would not give the move to the next computer until >one minute had gone by. i.e. computer #1 makes a move and gives it to "ICC." >Then, after one minute, "ICC" gives the move to computer #2. Etceteras. > >Maybe this is completely impractical. If so, then "so be it." I am merely >presenting a human observer desirement. > It would produce additional issues. IE I would not mind this because in tournament mode, I find all the known book moves, eliminate them from the set of legal moves, and then search this remaining set normally, to get a non-book move to ponder for my opponent. That would give me more time to fiddle with that search... >Incidentally, can I watch? When and where? What are the details? Will anybody >be set up as a paid commentator? I know Svidler would be asking too much. >Maybe someone else. The times will be announced here. The games are played on ICC. Whether we have a commentator or not is unknown, but hopefully yes... > >Bob D. > >Bob D. > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Games between top human GMs, played on ICC, are typically discussed in the >>>opening phase. Everybody is looking for the "Theoretical Novelty" move. >>>Sometimes the opening theory is discussed, too. Often, the opening repertoires >>>or styles of the players become a topic of discussion. Opening moves are >>>predicted. Etceteras. >> >>Depends. Games between some GM players and computers are played almost >>instantly for the first 10-15-even-20 moves... >> >> >> >>> >>>But if there are to be no observers, . . . forget it. >>> >>>Bob D.
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.