Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 05:34:36 02/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2000 at 05:13:41, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 Smyslov-Hübner,1983 http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/8284$cix.htm JAFM Smyslov-Hübner,1983
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.