From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Computer Ratings/Versions
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:54:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.120608.14537@visus.com> nash@visus.com writes:
>
>The problem as I see it is this. As we become forced to accept computers in  
>tournaments (like it or not), unless there is a well regulated way of  
>determining ratings, all computer should be forced to play in the OPEN section.  
>And in order to properly rate programs or computers, there must be a single,  
>non-changing entity to rate. As long as programmers are allowed to 'tweek'  
>their program and call it the same program, or run on faster hardware, or play  
>in multiple tournaments simultaneously, then there is no reliability of the  
>rating of that machine and certainly there is no correlation between the  
>computer's rating and a human's rating.

I don't think that this as an issue at all.  So what if a programmer "improves"
the program and it's rating improves.  I once got crushed with the King's gambit
a couple of times and spent a lot of time studying it.  My rating improved quite
a bit.  So what if a programmer "improves" the program and it's rating takes a
"dive" since the fix was not so hot?  After studying the King's gambit, I played
it a lot as white, only to find out that my opponent's knew it also.  My
improvement from the black side cost me dearly from the white side.

The real issue is that of sandbagging that humans like to participate in.  
Since a computer can't take a cash prize under the current rules, sandbagging
makes no sense.  For the comp. chess researchers, we want the rating to go
up, proving our ideas and algorithms.  For the Commercial comp. chess
vendors, they want their rating to go up to improve the sales for those
that have to have the very best.  Only humans, and their ability to claim
cash prizes, are subject to playing rating games, losing a few points here
to claim a prize there (granted the rating floor is supposed to help...)


>
>I would propose that in order for a computer to have an 'official' rating, an  
>therefore compete in anything but the open section, it must be a single machine  
>with 'frozen' software. And before you say that humans are allowed to change  
>their program, I submit that if the computer wants to change its program  
>_itself_ it is welcome to.
>--

I don't see the concern about "freezing" the software.  As an example, Cray
Blitz (or blitz as it was known prior to 1980) has been under development
since the early 1970's.  Are you honestly afraid that I can make some major
improvement to it between rounds of a tournament?  If you had any programming
experience, you would probably want to "require" some modifications between
rounds as these types of fixes often break more than they repair.  Unless I
see something really troubling, I rarely modify C-B during a tournament of
any kind.  Too dangerous.  If I notice it running close to the time-control
I might slightly change how it does it's time allocation for the next round,
but such changes are not of the "revolutionary" type, but more like a very
slow "evolution."  Requiring the machine to "change" itself is presently
absurd, but maybe not forever.

One other point.  A few messages back, someone said they would not mind
playing a computer, but only without any human intervention at all.  This
has been done with robot arms.  In 1976 (I believe the year is correct)
Chess 4.x played David Levy, and 4.x used a huge industrial robot arm to
move the pieces and punch the clock.  Levy and the machine were in a room
by themselves.  The Phantom is another example.  Realistically, having the
human make the moves, punch the clock, etc. actually costs the program
quite a bit.  With C-B we try to "hide" about 10 minutes of playing time
in a 40/2 tournament...  we tell C-B that it has to make 40 moves in
110 minutes.  Where does the extra 10 minutes come in?  When C-B announces
it's move, I have to see it, interpret it, make it, verify it, and punch
the clock.  When it's opponent makes his/her move, I have to see it,
convert it to algebraic, type it in, verify no errors, etc.  It is easy
to lose 10 to 20 seconds per move like this.  Why would you want to give
such an advantage up?

In 1981, I built an electronic chess board for C-B that eliminated my
having to type moves in -- it detected the moves magnetically.  It also
flashed lights (one per square like the new Mephisto machines) so that
I didn't have to read a move and then make it ... I merely had to watch
the blinking lights.  C-B's speed chess performance rating went up by 
well over 200 rating points.  Playing against mike Valvo, without the
electronic board, he often uses almost no clock time, thinking all of
his analysis while I'm typing or making moves.  The person making this
demand might want to rethink as it would certainly be to his detriment
to give up this time advantage.

Bob Hyatt

i
-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !