Author: Scott Gasch
Date: 12:23:22 11/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. Another problem we saw in the past was manual operators choosing the think time for their engines. In important positions they let it think longer. In "easy" positions they let it move quickly. We had people _admit_ doing this in CCT4. These decisions should of course be up to the engine.. human intervention is unacceptable. And automatic play would help limit this type of cheating. Scott
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.