Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 14:49:21 06/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2005 at 16:28:10, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2476 > >See under "reactions" , this excerpt : > >"But no matter what the result, and no matter what the result of a rematch, we >are clearly facing, very soon, a situation in which man vs machine Chess, as we >currently know it, is no longer of any spectator interest, because soon the time >will come, if it has not already arrived, when the gladiator will always be >eaten by the lion. What then? > >In my opinion the answer is simple – odds games. When the strongest human payers >have no chance at even games, let us give the human pawn odds. > >At the present time this would allow the very strongest human players to make a >plus score against the programs, but this could perhaps be mitigated by speeding >up the games. > >There is, undoubtedly, some rate of play, whether it is an average of 2 minutes >per move, or 1 minute, or 30 seconds, at which pawn odds would be a fair match. >As programs become stronger still, the rate of play could be slowed down, >eventually reaching, say, 3 minutes per move (on average). > >When the best programs of the day can give the world's strongest human player >pawn odds at 3 minutes per move, we simply increase the odds to two pawns and >reduce the rate of play again." The problem is that no win can be satisfying if the beast starts at a disadvantage. I think I'd rather see three human GMs versus Hydra, operating as a kind of triune brain. Or give the human time odds, and an analysis board. Plus, just let Hydra play on ICC continuously. See if the human GMs can adapt. Human beings are great at pattern analysis, but it can take awhile for patterns to emerge. Raj
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.