Author: Nicholas Cooper
Date: 14:36:09 01/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2000 at 12:43:28, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 16, 2000 at 11:37:52, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On January 16, 2000 at 06:18:24, Jeff Anderson wrote: >> >>>I think human vs, computer matches would be more fair if the human could analyse >>>on a seperate board during his game. Computers can basically do this so perhaps >>>the human should be able to do this too. >>>Jeff >> >>Then humans souldn't be allowed to go to the toilet, because computers don't. >> >>Enrique >> >>PS. Flu causes delirium. > >This has been an interesting subject to me for years. > >1) Computers can keep perfect record keeping. Since humans cannot, should humans >even take the time out to attempt it during play? > >2) Computers can keep track of any data they are programmed to during a game. >Should humans not get this same advantage, possibly writing down discarded moves >so that they are not forgotten (for example)? > >3) If a power failure occurs, should the computer automatically forfeit since it >will (normally) take human intervention to get it back to where it was? > >4) Why should a computer be able to look at end game tablebases and a human >cannot? > >Your example of humans not being allowed to go to the bathroom is a little inane >(no offense intented here, I assume you were trying to be humorous). This is >like saying that the computer cannot be hooked up to a power supply since a >human isn't (i.e. preventing the needs of either one does not make much sense). > >The point of my questions above is: > >Should we attempt to change the rules of chess with regard to human/computer >matches in order to even up the playing field? > >I think this type of question finally boils down to what is enjoyable to humans >since computers do not get a say in it. If humans enjoy playing in a "standard" >method, then that is what will happen. If people get annoyed at losing to >computers, then maybe they will start playing more advanced chess. Or some other >rules changes may take place. > >I think it comes down to what people like to do. People like to play bughouse, >so those that do, play it. Those that don't, do not. > >KarinsDad :) I would have to agree with KarinsDad that this is a very interesting question- for instance, why should computers be allowed to access an enormous database of games for reference when the human cannot. As an example, wouldn't it be fairer if the human had a complete copy of all the games the computer has in it's database in a database program without any access to an analysis module or playing program. Perhaps this should also be extended to a copy of all the tablebases. In this way, I think the matches would become a comparison of chess skill from the same information (the playing program Vs the brain) instead of a huge amount of stored knowledge Vs a limited memory, as it is currently. Anand's interview was very interesting from this point of view, as he pointed out that human Vs computer match conditions were devised when the computers were so inferior that the humans could prevail under almost any reasonable conditions. However, now that the computers have become strong, it seems a good time to revise what the conditions should be. Just a thought. Regards, Nick Cooper
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.