Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 22:53:47 01/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2004 at 23:26:27, margolies,marc wrote: >HI Bob, >Thanks for responding. I get it now. >You know New York there are lots of actuaries who play chess, usually in the >metropolitan league or the bankers league. So be careful who you say that to >about statisticians or your premiums get hiked :o( >The salt of my question, while not negating the powerful tool of post-ortem game >analysis as a means of improvement, .."can we expect our results to be >analytically useful when all players are not attempting to achieve victory when >we enter a contest designed for that purpose. And if not, is it honest advice to >ignore results?" >My sensibility-- my human sensibility-- is that I do not have to win each game >because I also have long-term goals to meet in competition. And I know that >winning all games, or striving for it leads to very safe, boring play. I >personally want to grow as a player and as a person-- also creatively. So I find >ineresting acceptable risks ( these are situational, one doesn't take the same >risks always it depends on tournament position, personal energy, etc). >While I am not sure how to apply this to computer chess tournaments, I do take >as an ethical given that competition itself should strive to be honest and >directed. In that regard I would want to know that each player is striving >seriously to achieve a win in each game. >This is how I came to ask whether you think winning is important or not in Comp >Chess matches. Because as an end user of chess engines I do take it seriously. I >also think that once people do not accept that these are serious contests, there >will be less observers and consequently less purchases and programming in this >arena (no pun intended towards FQ). >-Marc ><snip> You may be referring to the recent computer tournament where an operator seems to have thrown a game. That, IMHO, surely must be a rare anomaly. Chess-playing programs entered into tournaments typically play the strongest openings their programmer can find for them and the engines themselves always play to win. That's one of the differences between the silicon monsters and us humans, it seems to me. We humans can have lapses and bad moments but the chess engines just keep pounding away until some human pulls their plug, so to speak. Ethically speaking, chess engines are as ethical as it comes! They never cheat and never have ulterior motives. There's never anything underhanded about them! I only wish they would let me win against them at least once, but they show no mercy. I guess "mercy" is not in their vocabulary. You will never have to worry about a chess engine throwing a game for the sake of one of the other engines and there will never be any pre-arranged grandmaster draws. When it comes to ethics, we should all take a lesson from the chess engines. [Maybe their programmers deserve some of the credit?] Incidentally, the programs are so strong nowadays that they do not need to take risks! : ) 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.