Enter Your Reply

I guess automating the gaming process by bringing in computers to play
humans (or other computers) might overwhelm the website, but while I am on
the subject, there should be some practical way of evaluating how well
computers play against each other, even if a 2-ply computer will almost
always lose to a 2-ply human, if only because the 2-ply human has a way of
recognizing patterns and trends, and learns how to take advantage of them. 
I suspect an ordinary human capable of 3 plies will often beat a computer
capable of 6, if only because the human can assess positions more deeply
in a general, 'off-the-cuff' sort of way than computers can.

Well, I'm not too likely to buy a copy of Zillions of Games, so your
argument against implementation of a 'ply-based' ratings system using
computer players for standardization purposes sounds more like an 'a
priori' argument against it than anything else.  Computers should be
encouraged to participate against humans.

If two computers made absolutely random moves, the likelihood of winning
or losing would ultimately depend on their implementations of their
pseudo-random number generators; and some platforms do that sort of thing
much better than others can.  Even still, a computer that made totally
random moves should be rated 1000.  Programs that were 100% 'open
source' could be entered into the system for benchmark purposes. 
Computers otherwise operating on the basis of secret terms, or on the
basis of undisclosed source code would find themselves ranked against
those that were, just like humans are.

In closing, if a computer that played utterly randomly could be rated
1000, and a depth of 2-ply would make it play with the equivalent of a
1200 rating, then it follows that 10-ply would bring it up to 2000, and
20-ply would bring it up to 3000.