Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 23:54:40 06/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2005 at 18:44:58, GuyHaworth wrote: > >The problem with man-machine games is the human factor ... Michael Adams >arguably has a bad day at the office (somewhat heralded by recent games) and >suddenly it's 'no contest'. This could be an over-reaction. > >The ICGA WCCC 2005 in Iceland will hopefully see HYDRA alongside the usual >suspects, so we'll get some idea of whether it is mega-superior to the silicon >field then. > >I don't think the public would be interested in an 'odds' contest. > >I, and possibly others, would not be interested in 'artificial' attempts to slug >the computers, including the mooted limitations on opening books and endgame >tables. The opening book can be evolved by computer anyway. The EGTs can be >worked out in real-time as a special (perfect information) case of >forward-search - so are we to limit the search-capability of computers as well. > >The only reasonable handicapping possibility I see is to give the computer less >time than the human. Yeah, this makes more sense. First you double the number of processors (and FPGA cards) and then you give it only half the thinking time :) Michael > >What we want from any contest is interesting chess. Human blunders which >instantly lose don't make for interesting chess, so I'd be in favour of some >sort of blunder-guard. > >Michael Adams enabled us to see six games of interesting chess, so my thanks to >him for that. > >g
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.