On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Mark Boon <tesujisoftw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote: >> Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about >> mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both >> operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote >> play I think this is needed because now it is just too trivial to >> cheat. > > Do you want this just for 'remote' programs, or any program?
Preferably any, but I'm naturally more suspicious of programs that play remotely :-) Currently the rule is that logs must be made available to the TD on request when there is a suspicion. However, it is hard to be precise when no information is displayed during the game. > What if the 'thinking process' is nothing intelligible for anyone else? Do > we want to restrict programs made according to certain specifications which > include that the thinking process is understandable? Well, most programs can in principle display the move they are currently considering best, and usually also a principal variation, winning probability, etc. When a program is radically different from anything else, cannot show any intermediate results, and a conflict arises, then the author will probably have to try to convince the TD, for example by showing the source code. > I don't know what the situation currently is in computer-Go, but I don't > think the stakes are high enough to go over the trouble of cheating through > a remote program (it's quite a lot of work). I have been accused of cheating > once, but it was a rare thing to happen. With programs playing on KGS cheating is easy. Also, I think the stakes are increasing because we are now getting in the low amateur dan-levels. Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
