Author: Charles Milton Ling
Date: 15:07:13 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1999 at 15:36:58, KarinsDad wrote: >Ok, before I get started, this is not a message about the recent controversy on >cheating. If you want to talk about that, please respond to one of the other >threads or create your own. > >This thread is about knowing your opponent. > >Please take a deep breathe and put a little thought into your response before >answering. Do not take your first gut feel, but take a step back and try to look >at this objectively. > >When we play in a tournament, we often see an opponent that we know very little >about. If we haven't seen or heard about this person before, we know that they >are human, we have an idea on their age, and we probably know their rating. >There is not much more we know. However, we sit down and play this person >regardless of which opening they use or how strong they are. The idea is to have >fun and/or compete and/or whatever else rocks your boat about playing in a chess >tournament. > >However, when we go to a chess server, we do not see our opponent. We see the >time it takes our opponent to move and we see which moves are made. >Occasionally, we do a tell to our opponent and he tells back. > >But the users of a chess server (or at least the administrators) feel that it is >important to segregate humans from computers. Why is that? Do the computers not >also have ratings based on different speeds? Do they not also follow the same >rules of the game? What portion of the human condition drives us to keep these >two sets of contestants apart? Are we so afraid of losing that we think it >important to know that our opponent will make few tactical mistakes? Are we >really so concerned that a program can respond nearly instantaneously and a >human cannot? Do we really want to limit the style of play of the opponent by >knowing whether it is silicon based or carbon based ahead of time? > >Why is all of this so important? > >I started this thread to discuss this element of the human/computer chess >condition. Due to the recent cheating controversy, I could see where this set of >questions could push some people's buttons, so if it does this for you and you >do not wish to discuss this rationally, please do not respond as I am going to >restrain myself from getting into a shouting match this time. > >Thanks :) > >KarinsDad :) Briefly, I would like to comment as follows: If I am playing a human, I know that tactical errors (of rating-dependent magnitude) are a possibility. In other words, I might be ready to go into an unclear tactical line to make my opponent's task harder (if he/she is winning or higher-rated). If I am playing a computer, I know the only sensible procedure is to eschew tactics and play for positions that are strategic in nature, i.e. where assessments are long-term. If I don't know whom/what I am playing, who/what I am playing is at an advantage because I have no basis for such decisions. Whether this is sufficient to justify the term "unfair" I leave to the judgement of this forum. (I myself am undecided.) Charley
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.