![]() Algorithmic vehicle control has been very sophisticated for decades, and the state of the art only improves.ĭoes that make it less exciting to see the limits of what people can do?Ī while back I read a neat blog post about ways to cheat in a public chess tournament: Though it’s as yet unproven, I think it quite likely that with a few years of development, autonomous cars could reliably defeat the best humans at (for example) Formula 1 auto racing - even if their potential weight-distribution and aerodynamic advantages were nullified, or even if they operated under imposed delays to compensate for human reaction time. There’s certainly an awesome quality (for many of us) to what great chess players can do with their merely human apparatus. Most people know the fascination of watching someone succeed (or at least, come close) at a task that is extraordinarily hard. I sympathize with this perspective to some extent - I can’t bear to play Sudoku, or the board game Clue, because for me they are tedious exercises that cry out for computerized solution.īut sports (at the end of the day) are about pleasure, or - if done publicly/commercially - about entertainment. Janu3:20 B., who wrote “I have always been of the mind that once a game becomes solved algorithmically human society should essentially stop playing it.” I’m not sure if I buy that argument, but it became very clear that if you could check one move late in the game, you could easily turn a match. Kasparov also used this as an argument for his “Advanced Chess”, which combines a player and a computer. They stood stunned as the commentator started to read out the line, and two moves into that line - they both saw Kasparov’s mate.īasically, what they realized is that even the very top players, if they can get just one move at the right time can turn matches. He was fighting between two moves, chose one, and some four hours later, the match ended a drawĪfter the match, he immediately went to a commentator - who had Fritz, the noted chess program running in front of him - and asked “I couldn’t win, could I?” To Kasparov’s and Anand’s shock, the answer was “Yes, you had a win with 20.g4!” This was the other move that Kasparov had been considering. ![]() A game was in progress, at move 20, Kasparov paused for some time before making a move. Indeed, Garry Kasparov and Vishy Anand proved this in 1996, when they were both ranked in the top five of the world by ELO. There is a proposal to insert a 15 minute delay on that, and one French tourney did so when a suspected cheat was playing.Ĭheating at chess wouldn’t need comms every move. The moves are often sent out in real time on the net. ![]() The best approach would be to apply some simple countermeasures like banning electronic devices and observing players’ behaviour and letting the really smart cheaters win. ![]() For the “output” channel there are numerous possibilities for a miniature device receiving signals of any nature and transducing them somehow to player’s senses – or even an accomplice among the audience giving coded signals. Often a covert input channel to the chess software is not needed at all as tournaments get transmitted live on various online chess services. Even if these were banned, one could, for one example, record one’s moves on paper with a rigged pen that transmits it’s movements (I’ve read about a commercial product like that once). I shouldn’t have to explain to the readers of this blog what possibilities it creates. It will kill the whole fun.īarring that, it will be always possible to set up some covert channel to an accomplice running chess software.Īpparently some chess federations allow using PDAs or similar devices with “approved” software to record one’s moves. The chess tournaments aren’t going to be held in military-grade TEMPEST-shielded bunkers nor the players are going to be strip- and cavity searched. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |