Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:25:47 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1999 at 16:35:04, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 26, 1999 at 16:00:44, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>Some people don't want to play computers because they have a computer at home >>and would play it if they wanted to play a computer. >> >>Some would like to socialize with an opponent, but wouldn't like to socialize >>with an operator, and the act of playing the game is what I'm referring to, not >>necessarily the chatting after or even during. >> >>Some don't want to play because they don't like the combination of attributes >>that comprise computer strength. If you play a human you can play speculatively >>and bluff. You can't do this as easily against a computer. >> >>The computer won't adapt to you at a high level as well as a human will, and a >>computer won't do blunt and direct things that perhaps you could learn from, >>instead it will play from move to move. >> >>I used to play against computers a lot, and the quality of the experience was >>very different from play against a human. >> >>I think it is perfectly fine for people to expect to know whether their opponent >>is a computer or a human. >> >>Regardless, this is the rule, it will never be changed no matter what we say >>here, and a great many people have very sincere opinions that the rule be >>enforced. >> >>bruce > >Bruce, > >What if (and this is just speculation) someone wrote a program where it was >extremely difficult to tell if it was human or if it was a program? The program >could be configured to play at 1600 or 2600 and it could do such an superb job >that nobody could tell the difference. > >With the exception of your socializing comment (which might be handled by a >knowledgeable operator and good analysis features of the program), such a >program would not be contrained to the limitations that you effectively >mentioned on today's current programs (which are very true today). It may not be >commercially available, so you couldn't play it at home, it would have different >attributes than current programs, and it's ability to adapt would be extremely >human-like. > >Granted, today this is just speculation. But what if? > >Should such a program be segregated? Do people have a right to know that they >are playing it? If so, why? Would there be any harm in people NOT knowing >exactly who their opponent was in such a case (like they do not know based on >the handles today)? > >BTW, from a pragmatic point of view, I agree with all of the points that you >made. I'm trying to explore a little the realm of "what if". > >KarinsDad :) Here's a more important issue: When I play on ICC, the _only_ thing I get from winning/losing/drawing is a rating adjustment. And we _all_ use those to try to figure out who can play chess how well. Now what would you do if you play an 1800 player that uses a computer every now and then? You get killed with your rating (I am talking about _me_ as a human player here, not as a computer program). That is a real problem.. someone that says "so what if it is only once every 10 games..." How often do you find an 1800 player that plays like a 2600 player every 10th game? Not a reasonable thing...
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.