This is not a good idea. Not only is Jean-loup correct about the playing strength issue, but it's like mixing several experiments. This one is about the bet John Tromp made and the experiment stands on it's own merit without combining additional factors that makes it hard to take the results seriously.
As far as whether John is given a chance to prepare against a specific opponent - I would simply ask John if it matters to him. He may or may not care either way. However, I would like to note that in the Deep Blue match that was a serious criticism, whether you buy it or not, that Kasparov was shut out almost completely from the usual preparation he would do in any serious match against any human. Many people considered that a huge advantage for the computer. I doubt that would be an issue that would be debated in this case but I thought it worth mentioning. Don On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Jean-loup Gailly <[email protected]> wrote: > Darren, > > > One option I'm considering is a facade that is running two or more > programs beneath the surface. > > This may result in a weaker program than one of the programs playing alone > but consistently. > So before using a facade for the actual event I strongly recommend doing > many (hundreds) > experiments to verify that it is actually stronger than any of the programs > alone. > > Jean-loup > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
