Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:42:52 09/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
>>It's not so simple, consider a few points... >> >>#1. Instead of the move send weird stuff to the other PC as a result >>the other PC will crash. Do that in case your score is below -1.xx. >>Don't do it in every game. > >You and I checked several programs with CB and Donninger's auto232, and no >program sent anything weird. > >>#2. Let your own program crash when you are down in score. Don't do >>it every game. > >This can be "achieved" also manually, and it has happened twice in the few >thousand games I autoplayed. > >>#3. Send the "move now" command to the other PC after say 10 seconds >>in a 60/60 or 40/120 game. Hide it a little, nobody will notice. > >This can be "achieved" also manually, and it has happened twice in the few >thousand games I autoplayed. These days crashes are rare I agree but I consider a time-out also as a crash and I have seen too many of suspect time-out cases and they by definition always favor the Rebel opponent. I checked the time-out parameter and that can't be the reason. Similar games (behavior) seen? >>I have not the impression it currently happens but is all possible >>if a programmer wants so. >> >>About books... >> >>You can easily recognize when the opponent is out of book simply by >>checking the opponent response time. With this information you can >>recognize the opponent. Think about this for a while. I have tried >>it for my own curiosity and it simply works. Now you can do nice >>things in case you know the opponent. Is it happening already? I >>don't know but it can be done and quite easily. > >I wonder if this is so easy (the 2 versions I tried didn't make reliable >identifications at all), and even if a program can identify the opponent >one can easily argue that: Read again. I am not talking about first versions I once send you but a system based on the moment when a program is out of book which you can easily measure by the (long cq direct) response time of the opponent. You can identify the opponent based on that information. It's a piece of cake if you think about it for a few moments. >- it would be an intelligent development in the "artificial intelligence" >field. > >- all programmers could do it, so what's the problem? The problem (book-learning alike) is that it hides the real strength of a chess engine. These days it's not about the engine but more about the extra elo you can gain by smart (and aggressive) book-learning and opponent recognition will only make it worse. It operates hidden hardly to see (notice) for the end-user unless you take a very deep look in the system. >>This whole auto232 thing is so fragile that I can imagine people >>don't want to touch it any longer. > >It has always been fragile, but more reliable than the very few manual games >that can be played. Proof: you and I play thousands of automatic games, and >seldom any manual ones. Why is that? :) It depends on the intention you are playing these thousands of games. For me that is to improve Rebel as it gives me a lot of useful data. Ed
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.