Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 02:13:41 02/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2000 at 04:03:53, Mig wrote: >On February 18, 2000 at 03:48:31, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>I don't believe that it is necessary (or even a good thing) to limit computer >>players to specific man-machine events. What I do think is necessary for >>successful mixed events to take place is recognition that a non-human tournament >>participant is entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and respect that human >>participants receive. That might sound like a very weird statement to someone >>that doesn't attempt to make machines perform tasks traditionally done by >>humans, but it is essential. > >That's great in theory, but there will always be exceptions, like the one we ran >into. We can give all those rights to a computer player, but when problems arise >that only affect the human player, how can we compensate? If DJ had been an >Israeli GM we'd have known that both players were equally exhausted and nervous >so no advantage was being gained by either side due to the delay. But with a >computer this wasn't true and we all know that. The amount of nervous energy top >GMs expend is enormous, and to charge up again after five hours is not easily >done. At the end of the day they are different. Maybe only one case in 100 would >make these differences relevant, but we had one yesterday. > >Saludos, Mig > >mig@kasparovchess.com Thank you for giving such a good example: this is _exactly_ the sort of thinking that I was referring to. Some humans fatigue less quickly than others; Deep Junior doesn't fatigue. It is completely irrelevant: if the game cannot be postponed, then it should be played, whether the player_S_ are fatigued or not. (Like I was saying, this perspective probably seems very strange.) Question: when it became clear that it was not possible to postpone the game and not possible to play the game, did anybody consider using a coin toss or other "random" event to determine who would advance? Precedent: I believe FIDE used a roulette wheel to determine who would advance from a tied candidates' match some years ago. In this specific circumstance, such a solution would at least have given each player an equal chance to advance: fair, if the score was 1/2-1/2 after the chess was done. Dave
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.