computer programs

I saw that in many games programs are used to play. Would it be possible to get a 'computer'-free championship (maybe paralel to a mixed championship). I know there is no way to check if someone uses a program or not, but if every one is honest it is no problem. (I don't see why you wouldn't be honest, anyway). Being the programming champ would still be a good goal for mixed championship....

At least I hope all players that in fact are computers should indicate this in their userid (like "loco-ai"), where "ai" stands for "artifical intelligence"

you can only live with it or don't play...

As far as I know, there aren't that many programs that play. In Streetsoccer, it's only loco-ai (thus far). If there will be more, it would be interesting to have an all-program championship though.

loco-ai isn't so strong it's dominating any tournaments. If that were the case, I'd take it out of them immediately because we play for fun, and if you know you're going to lose before you start, the fun is gone. Like playing corne at Streetsoccer ;-) (not true, I just beat him ;-)

I guess Erwin missed my point a bit. I can perfectly live with computer players in the games. My main point was to make it visible...

I only suggested to have a 'computer'free league as well. If you test computer players only against computer players I guess the programming challenge is different, but so is the challenge for humans as well.

Erwin probably means that there _always_ will be people who sneaky use computerprograms (but deny use of it). And he's right, you can't do anything about it but to live with it or stop playing.

I love the 'honest' computer programs, and I hope we can welcome more computer programs in the future.

I don't see the reason to use a computer program to help you play your games. I want to play with others on this site and I play for fun, sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. And I don't need a program for that.

The only reason I see to use a program is to play against the computer to advance your skills, nothing more!

Most people think like that, but there always are exceptions: players who want to win so badly, they'll use a program to find the best moves. They don't care how they win, as long as they win. Myself, I always play to win, but the way getting there is most of the fun.

These sites are actually good for testing computerprograms that you have written yourself. The best way to test programs is to let it play against humans. In the beginning that program will lose many games, but will get better as it is developed.

As soon as the program becomes harder to beat, it's time for the next phase, testing against other computers and topplayers.

Ofcourse it is not fair using programs that are already unbeatable and that you have not even written yourself.

Policy on Computer 'Assistance'?

I'm lucky. I'm not that good a chess player, so anyone who primarily uses a program rather than their own judgement is going to be rated much higher than me; not one of my direct competitors.

But what about the stronger players? Do those of you who rely on your own ability feel put upon when you think you're playing a machine? Does LG define using a program to be cheating, as the real-time servers do? If so, is there realistically anything Richard can do to make that policy stick?

I ask, because I think at least one top player is subtlly advertising the fact that he's using a computer, and encouraging others to do the same. I don't know what I should do about that.

2004-01-13

Yayael'zumzum RE: Policy on Computer 'Assistance'?

No that's worth a chuckle or two. Nice play on the word "Asistance". Here you seem like a native anglophone.

2004-01-13

Mightyking RE: Policy on Computer 'Assistance'?

All the chess sites that I know off disallow the use of computers to calculate the respective moves for human players. I think this is a good and fair policy.

However, how are we going to check on this policy, whether a player is using a computer or not? We might suspect that a certain player is using unexpected aide, but we can almost never be a one-hundred percent sure. And even if we are, are we going to ban people from playing on this site?

The point I like to make is that it can not really be prevented. So the question should arise: does it harm 'fair' players, if someone else is 'cheating'.

I can only answer this for myself: it does not bother me at all. As a matter of fact, I think I have more chance of winning against someone who is copying their computer's moves, compared to someone who is playing with a plan.

Does this claim change? Probably, there will be a time when computers begin to outplay all humans. Playing a game against such a strong computer should bring a smile to our face, and be thankful the computer showed us our mistake, so we can learn from it.

Being the highest ranked player on this site, I am willing to play a little match against a computer player. The point is to, hopefully, show, that it is possible to beat computers. I know in GWG a computer player is playing on this site, so maybe someone is willing to do the same for chess?

For the chess community on this site I will present my analysis of the games, as soon as the match is over.

Kind regards,

Mightyking aka Michel

2004-01-13

klaashaas RE: Policy on Computer 'Assistance'?

I agree with Mighty King: you can never get 100% proof, so there's nothing Richard can (or should) do.

In reversi, computer programs are superior. I think there's a player who uses artificial intelligence-aid in the reversi championship. It's very frustrating to all the other players who use their own brainpower. But nothing we can do (except for not recognising the player as championship participant and ignore the results against him/her).

I encourage the robots on littlegolem, though, just as long as they present themselves as robots.

2004-01-14

Yayael'zumzum RE: Policy on Computer 'Assistance'?

People generally like to think of themselves as special somehow. Whether it is because we've got a "soul" or we can think, we need to feel that there is something we can do better than anything else out there. There is a real fear that if we discovered enough, we might find that we are not exempt from the laws of nature. That we might be a "machine" full of moving parts and gears that control our every action like programs control Deep Blue. I think at the most basic level of your arguments, you are saying that "If it doesn't make decisions the way a human does, then it ain't real thinking." What does it matter if in the end, computer calculations beat out our much flaunted "thinking" processes? I bet The Simple the Lumberjack is probably still complaining that gas powered saw isn't a "real" treecutter. The rules are simple. I agree with klaashass 11 hours ago, and now.. 108% in that people "make calculations" according to some physical law or logic as well. However, a good chess player should knows his opponent, or should I said opponents in (Plural)before the match..I think that a chess game, always thru history is been refer as a "gentleman game". Let's think that for a moment..imagine that I am only 14 years old, How I will feel..!? to know that a human is disguise from me as an IA. For the records on ICC Internet Chess Club...Ref: (1) guest 301 (38); (2) guest 888; I beat LinuxKnight 2920 and NetCafe-JO 2887(34) on BLIZTZ..THAT'S RIGHT COMPUTER CAN BE DEFEAT..I DO AGREE WITH YOU 8X8 % =64 MIGHTYKING. Do I have the right to known my oponents?

Please Robot who ever you are come forward and identified yourself. I don't want nobody or a robot to steal my candies.

Respectfully yours.

JLV

2004-01-15

Rex Moore RE: Policy on Computer 'Assistance'?

I am not an active chess player here, and thus have no stake in this argument. I also agree there's probably not much Richard can do about it.

I'll only point out that Josef's "lumberjack vs. machine" analogy misses the mark. If there's a competition among lumberjacks to see who can saw through a log the fastest with a normal saw, and someone shows up with a chainsaw... sure, the one with the chainsaw can win. But that's probably not very fun for most participants.

Maybe there's some "mighty" lumberjack who enjoys the challenge, but most people just want to compete in the spirit of the rules, against other lumberjacks with normal saws.

Like klaashaas, I don't much mind if computers/robots participate on Little Golem, as long as they are identified as such.

Rex

2004-01-15

Yayael'zumzum RE: Policy on Computer 'Assistance'?

Chess is a game of complete information and true search mode, played on a chessboard, by two persons, with two differently colored sets of men, sixteen in each set, (2) players that move their 16 pieces according to specific rules; the object is to checkmate the opponent's king. We tend to ask what sort of knowledge is chess-knowledge-is it formal or informal. We conclude that it is formal because in principle there are an exhaustive set of rules for winning the game. But, humans do not play chess like computers-at least not all the time. Human chess playing is part behavior-specific action and part not. Skilled players usually play the first few moves of chess openings as behavior-specific action. Some chess endings are also generally performed as behavior-specific action. Skill at chess openings and endings increases as the ability to accomplish behavior-specific action increases. The middle game of chess is not behavior-specific action as far as most good human players are concerned; at least some of the middle game has to do with the quintessentially non-behavior-specific skill of creating surprises. Robots, on the other hand, do play a middle game that mimics what human play would be like; were it to be played as behavior-specific action. The great chess-playing competition between Robots and humans over the last couple of decades has been between the regular action middle game of the best humans and the rule-based procedures of chess programs; slowly the programs are winning. If human brains were better at behavior-specific action, then that, I would guess, is how chess masters would now be playing. On the other hand, what would happen to the culture of chess should a chess-playing machine be built that, THAT could play the game exhaustively and therefore win every time with the same moves? It could be that the nature of the game of chess would change; people would care less about winning and more about the aesthetics. In that case, human chess would become quintessentially non-behavior-specific. “It is very good for a child to talk about what he does not understand; as long as he understands that he does not understand it.” It is like an invisible entity taking a candy from a child”. Yet like aspirant sorcerers, strategically, we know that getting the quasi-magical symbols even slightly wrong can sometimes have catastrophic practical consequences. It's very frustrating to all the other players who use their own brainpower. The idea of a competition between human players and lumberjack SUPERCOMPUTER robots, would then seem as absurd as an adding competition between a human and a computer or a pulling competition between a strong man and/or an invisible chainsaw’s tractor.

“A sound plan makes us all heroes, the absence of a plan, idiots.

-- Alexander Kotov

wouldn't it have been simpler to merely post the url for the previous discussion, rather than re-posing the entire discussion?

"Policy on Computer 'Assistance'" (Chess forum): http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/topic.jsp?forum=10&topic=33

As stated earlier; it cannot be proven if a player uses a computer program to make his/her moves. Therefore LG cannot ever ban anyone for using a program. LG can only ask/request programs to identify themselves as such.

One thing that goes unsaid is; players that use a computerprogram to reach a certain goal or just to blow other players from the board mostly stop doing that after some time, they simply get bored...

Jan C. de Graaf wrote:

> As stated earlier; it cannot be proven if a player uses a computer program to make his/her moves. Therefore LG cannot ever ban anyone for using a program. LG can only ask/request programs to identify themselves as such.

Your logic is that you can't make a rule when you can't control if everyone respects the rule. (You sound like a Dutch politician. :-) )

I don't agree with that at all.

LG can ask/request makers of programs to let the computer play only rating tournaments, for example.

I self think that the rating tournaments and the waiting room and the invite option are the best places for computer players on this site. In StreetSoccer a computer (loco-ai, made by Ronald Lokers) plays Monthly Cup tournaments too what is funny in my opinion as long as it doesn't play a big role in the Monthly Cup tournaments. I think I will not like to play in the second round of the Monthly Cup against the computer (unless if I win :-) ).

I like to look what loco-ai reaches in it's championship league. But I don't like a computer in the MC or championship if it is one of the best of all players.

> One thing that goes unsaid is; players that use a computerprogram to reach a certain goal or just to blow other players from the board mostly stop doing that after some time, they simply get bored...

Unless when you connect your computer program to this site and let it play completely automatical. As long as nothing changes here and it doesn't crash.

bump