Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:18:36 05/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2005 at 11:07:32, Matthew Hull wrote: > > >Well done. I did look at a few of the games myself and came to a similar >conclusion. Pablo's trick would not work so well at long time controls, I >think. He certainly could not do it "on demand" such as in a six-game showdown >at 120 0. But even though it's a lame trick, it should be allowed and >programmers are responsible to fight against tricks. > >I think the ICC rule 7 is wrong-headed. If I were running ICC, I would allow >repeating lines against programs. It is the programmer's responsibility to make >a better program than to allow itself to be exploited. It is just another >program weakness that needs fixing. There is no need to defend program >weaknesses with extra rules. I would allow (and even encourage) players to >punish such programmer oversights relentlessly. That's how you get better >programs. > >I'd bet money Bob Hyatt agrees with me on this. > >:) > > Pretty much. I've always been a believer in "take control of your own destiny." I'd be more than willing to have him play crafty in 3 0 games as long as he wants. And I'd bet money crafty will _never_ lose a 3 0 game against a human. And it won't lose against a computer unless the game is _way_ long, say 500 or more moves... There are really two kinds of people in the world. 1. The kind that complain when something is exploited. 2. The kind that recognize when something is exploited and then fix it so that it can't be exploited again. I went thru this in losing to very fast humans (no longer possible), repeating bad opening lines (book learning helps but doesn't totally solve it but positional learning offers even more help; The "trojan horse attack" was killing everyone and producing lots of complaints. I chose to prevent the attack. Etc.
This page took 0.01 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.