Author: Maurizio De Leo
Date: 04:49:42 02/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2003 at 05:48:42, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >If you did read this before the match, what were you thinking? >Ok, they don’t thrust the program when it comes recognise a drawn position so >they want a human/chess expert to take this decision (do this 'move') on the >behave of the program. Isn't obvious then that this team should only see the >chessboard under the game and not any analyses or even the score output from >the playing program. I read this before the match, because it was published on the chessbase news and also advertised here in CCC. When I read it I tought it as a "kindness" to the human player. It is clear that the draw agreement can be coded inside the program : for example "accept only if down 0.x pawn or more for more than y moves". This feature is implemented in every commercial program, also Junior 7. But we have seen in game 4 that computers can be dumb in understanding dead draw, and can play them on for dozeens of moves, thinking to be ahead. From this the idea of delegating the decision to the human. But there was a problem. Kasparov is 2800 and Deep Junior is supposed to be a worthy opponent : how could a 1800 elo human operator decide about possible outcome of a super-Gm game ? So the "team" (including a Gm) decides, checking of course what the real player thinks (this means "what's junior score"). It is clearly stated in the rules that they couldn't offer draw if Junior evaluation wasn't near zero. >I think this missing feature from the program should be brought out so any >potential buyers know which behaviour he can expect from the program. The feature that is missing is "GM-style draws". But commercial Junior will most likely have a "contempt factor" that the user can set as they wish, from "never draw" to "always draw". >When it is known after the game that they not only have looked at the output >from the program but also analysed the position before decide to offer/accept >a draw, isn’t it then something with the ethical norm of playing a chess game >that is broken. I think you can't forbid to human spectators of a game to analyze the position that arise : they will always do, even if only in their head. So if you rely on an human for deciding draw offer, you can't avoid he analyzed the position. >>I think this answer your question. More details here >>e. When a draw offer is made by the human player, the machine's operator will >>promptly enter the human player's move into the computer. The machine team may >>start consultation at this point (off stage), viewing whatever is on the >>machine's screen. >> > >Ok, so it was booked that the was allowed to see Junior's output, but this is >totally different from start to analyse the game on a second machine before a >decision is made. The rules allowed them to read machine output, principal variation and such. The fact that they probably couldn't see junior screen from the team room and switched on the second machine for checking what junior was "thinking" doesn't seem such a big deal to me. Maybe in a next match that can be ruled out, but until now it wasn't explicity forbidden, so it was allowed. regards Maurizio P.S. The whole story seems a little irrelevant. The big deal is arriving in an equal position with kasparov, not deciding to draw. And, after all, you must be in 2 to draw by agreement (this means "Kasparov proposed and later accepted the draw). In principle all games could have been played by junior to the bitter end (mate,repetition or 50 moves rules) but that would have been unacceptable for the human side.
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.