
Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
Moderator: Ras
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:34 am
Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
I still see unfair comp-comp tournaments in which programs are using more cores, bigger hard-disks, extended opening books, more fast RAM, dedicated hardware, etc. I would propose that next time programmers play against each other, trying to derive their moves from paper calculation (a la Turing). 

-
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:12 pm
- Location: Whitchurch. Shropshire, UK.
- Full name: Harvey Williamson
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
1. GM Larry Kaufmanarturo100 wrote:I still see unfair comp-comp tournaments in which programs are using more cores, bigger hard-disks, extended opening books, more fast RAM, dedicated hardware, etc. I would propose that next time programmers play against each other, trying to derive their moves from paper calculation (a la Turing).
2. FM Vincent Diepeveen
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: Québec
- Full name: Mathieu Pagé
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
What if a team can get a better pencil than me? Shouldn't we standardize the pencil and paper used?
Mathieu Pagé
mathieu@mathieupage.com
mathieu@mathieupage.com
-
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:52 pm
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
What if someone has a better brain than me. That would be unfair too!!mathmoi wrote:What if a team can get a better pencil than me? Shouldn't we standardize the pencil and paper used?
-
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:21 am
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
Actually, #2 should be IM Vasik Rajilich.Harvey Williamson wrote:1. GM Larry Kaufmanarturo100 wrote:I still see unfair comp-comp tournaments in which programs are using more cores, bigger hard-disks, extended opening books, more fast RAM, dedicated hardware, etc. I would propose that next time programmers play against each other, trying to derive their moves from paper calculation (a la Turing).
2. FM Vincent Diepeveen
#3 either Miguel or Vincent
-
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:12 pm
- Location: Whitchurch. Shropshire, UK.
- Full name: Harvey Williamson
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
I think the Jonny programmer has IM norms also.swami wrote:Actually, #2 should be IM Vasik Rajilich.Harvey Williamson wrote:1. GM Larry Kaufmanarturo100 wrote:I still see unfair comp-comp tournaments in which programs are using more cores, bigger hard-disks, extended opening books, more fast RAM, dedicated hardware, etc. I would propose that next time programmers play against each other, trying to derive their moves from paper calculation (a la Turing).
2. FM Vincent Diepeveen
#3 either Miguel or Vincent
-
- Posts: 3026
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
Presuming they derive their moves STRICTLY from paper calculation, that list above is completely off, unless Larry and Vincent are a whizzes with paper math.Harvey Williamson wrote:1. GM Larry Kaufmanarturo100 wrote:I still see unfair comp-comp tournaments in which programs are using more cores, bigger hard-disks, extended opening books, more fast RAM, dedicated hardware, etc. I would propose that next time programmers play against each other, trying to derive their moves from paper calculation (a la Turing).
2. FM Vincent Diepeveen
That said, let me make my own proposition:
Computer Chess Boxing!
The programmers have to manually play the moves their engines propose on a physical board, a blitz game, then they get up and put their gloves on!



"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 5106
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:27 pm
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
Each paper player should be playing in behalf of their opponents. In other words if you and I have submitted paper programs then I operate your program and do the calculations you specify and visa versa. Each program author of course might want to verify that hist programs moves moves were being correctly executed. Any disagreement could be settle between them, but in the case where they cannot resolve the bug the author could request some additional help from a 3rd party.Albert Silver wrote:Presuming they derive their moves STRICTLY from paper calculation, that list above is completely off, unless Larry and Vincent are a whizzes with paper math.Harvey Williamson wrote:1. GM Larry Kaufmanarturo100 wrote:I still see unfair comp-comp tournaments in which programs are using more cores, bigger hard-disks, extended opening books, more fast RAM, dedicated hardware, etc. I would propose that next time programmers play against each other, trying to derive their moves from paper calculation (a la Turing).
2. FM Vincent Diepeveen
That said, let me make my own proposition:
Computer Chess Boxing!
The programmers have to manually play the moves their engines propose on a physical board, a blitz game, then they get up and put their gloves on!
![]()
![]()
Here is a simple paper program:
1. play a legal move selected in a uniformly random way.
A RNG could be constructed based on coin flips.
Probably better to have a paper program that can be unambiguously executed and that does not rely on any random selection or outside paraphernalia such as coins or dice.
I made such a program when I was a kid and before home computers existed. I vaguely remember that step 1 started with "are you in check? If yes, goto step 2, otherwise go to step 10." I specified that you should capture the checking piece if possible and I had rules to determine which piece should capture it if there was more than one.
It was kind of fun I remember but the challenge is to make it very trivial to execute. It should not be so difficult that you absolutely must have a paper and pencil and do a ton of calculation. It's also more difficult than you think not to create ambiguous rules. You cannot make assumptions about concepts without really precise definitions - for instance you cannot ask "is your queen in danger" without having a very precise definition of what "in danger" means.
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:31 am
- Location: Malmö, Sweden
- Full name: Bo Persson
Re: Next tournament: programmer vs. programmer
And they must of course not use more than 8 moves worth of opening theory!Harvey Williamson wrote:1. GM Larry Kaufmanarturo100 wrote:I still see unfair comp-comp tournaments in which programs are using more cores, bigger hard-disks, extended opening books, more fast RAM, dedicated hardware, etc. I would propose that next time programmers play against each other, trying to derive their moves from paper calculation (a la Turing).
2. FM Vincent Diepeveen