Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 05:45:57 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 03:52:44, Darse Billings wrote: >One of the fundamental flaws in reasoning is the premise that the >WCCC is a competition strictly between programs, and that the human >operator plays no role whatsoever. That is demonstrably false, and >it is trivially easy to see that it is false. A slow operator can >affect the outcome of a game. What if an operator refuses to enter >a move, or refuses to execute a move and hit the clock? There is >no rule that forces him or her to do so within a fixed time period. To be honest, I only read this far. You really need to learn to be a bit more concise; no one wants to waste their time reading a 100 page post, half of which is poorly worded insinuations against the intelligence of the members of CCC. I suspect this is as far as you will read in my post, but I'm going to finish anyway :) In my opinion, the role of the human operator is what needs to change. There is simply no reason to have them any more. If I were to set things up, I would have everyone connect there computers to a LAN, set up a mini ICC, and play all the matches completely autonomously. If the programmer wants to resign when the score is -10, he can build in code to that. If he wants it to claim draws, he can build in code to that. If he wants it to resign a drawn position vs Shredder, he can do that. But once the match starts, it's hands off. If it crashes or hangs, too bad for him. I completely agree with GCP that the best part of computer-computer events is chatting with the authors, and that is precisely why I think we need fully automated tourneys. How can you relax and talk when you are constantly having to move the pieces around? anthony
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.