Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:30:56 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 12:39:00, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>On November 30, 2003 at 12:11:45, Sandro Necchi wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>you are not fair as you did not read what has been written about what happened.
>
>it is unimportant if the operator of jonny wanted to be FAIR or nice.
>the GUI said 3rd repetition and the operator has to call the TD to
>ask for a draw.
>this is the rule.
What I said is that I have accepted the rules for this tournament which I did
not make and the TD.
This means that I would accept any decision the TD would have taken as these
people have my full confidence in their knowledge and fairness.
As far I am concerned I would have given to Fritz the full point in the same
case as I personally believe that after a huge advantage the programs should be
allowed to resign as the commercial versions do.
Who knows me know that I am fully sincere as this is my hobby and I want to keep
it so to be able to be sincere always and not say what may be the best.
Anyway it was not the GUI playing the tournament, but the engine, so the engine
is governing the game.
>
>It is in this case not important what the emotions of the operator want.
>the operator is only a VOICE of the Screen that SHOWS information.
>
>
>
>>What happened was allowed by the agreed (by all partecipants) rules.
>
>ah i see.
>if nobody stands up
>then it is an agreement by all.
>
>one day it is OK to throw out LIST because of the complain, because
>of the rules or whatever, and the next day it is ok to make a win out of a draw.
I also think that the decision for LIST was correct because this was done by the
people who have my trust as I have accepted them to take decision on this
matter.
I hope the programmer will be able to show they were wrong, but he did not.
>
>and the next tournament the programs do not play a move and the operators
>decided themselves before the game about the result ?
>
>
>>Maybe we can improve the rules, but we MUST followed and accept them once we
>>have accepted them. Both in the good or bad.
>
>The rules are not the problem. The people using/misusing the rules are the
>problem.
If the rules are not clear enough the TD will have to decide and this was done.
I accept his decision as stated above.
>
>It's exactly about ACCEPTENCE !
>
>When will the ICCA/ICGA accept their own rules ?
>When will they stop to manipulate the championships with different kind
>of judgement.
>
>you can write tons of rules and laws, when the TD's don't follow them
>or do whatever they want your rules are not worth anything.
I don't think has happened as otherwise the outcome would have been different.
>
>
>
>>There is no more we can say on thim matter. I understand we may have different
>>opinions, but the rules are the rules.
>
>EXCATLY. here we agree.
>
>if my GUI says Ng5 and the operator says: oh no - Ng5 is too tough, i better
>play Ng1 that makes it easier for the opponent...
>
>
>
>>Anything more on this matter may be just misleading.
>>
>>Does anyone really believe that we would have been allowed to win the game if
>>this was against the rules?
>>
>>I hope to see people talk about the chess games as players and not caring about
>>things which have very little to do with chess.
>
>
>the things that have "very little to do with chess" are the human beeings
>deciding.
OK, but this according to the agreed rules, so what?
>
>we could eliminate the human beeings operating, and replace the
>ICCA/ICGA with a better organisation.
In the future we can change this or agree them differently, but now the rules
were fixed and so the TD.
>
>
>
>>I am wondering if this is a chess site or something else...
>
>this is a computerchess site. if you are looking for a chess site you are in the
>wrong forum.
I am looking for a computer chess site talking about chess as these "toys" are
made to play chess...or they are suppose to do so...
>>I stated that we would have won the championship no matter anything and we did.
>
>excatly. no matter the rules of the ICGA are followed or not :-))
Mah...this is quite unfair toward the TD people and I do not think they deserve
it.
>
>>Think about how I could knew this from a chess point of view instead of making a
>>lot of noise on nonsense things.
>>
>>Pls. speak about chess and chess games, engines etc...otherwise change sport.
>>
>>Sandro
>
>Ah come on. When i present data that Mchess uses a killer book of melted
>autoplayer games against hiarcs, you come with excuses
This is false as all programs did include variations improved on other chess
programs, not only MChess. This was stated by SSDF too.
I stated that my aim was not to make killed lines against other programs but to
improve the book by including more moves to speed up the play and make it more
fun (in my point of view).
People like you may so only extended lines against computer as you may did test
MChess against computers only, but you would have found the same against human
players too.
Did I cook them too?
I like extended book as I believe they make the game more fun. Other people may
desagree. OK, fine I accept their different point of view, but you cannot force
me to change mine. Since me and the programmer agreed to make the opening book
that way it is a choice of the user to buy it as it is or not.
and try to attack the
>people who come with the data as doing "campaigns" and stuff like this.
>And there you do not talk about chess either.
I was attacked in a very unfair and not sportive way and I had to defend myself.
I never criticized other programmers or book makers, why the others do not the
same?
>
>Now you want to talk about chess instead talking about what has happened.
>You turn the INTEREST in the way you need it.
>One day you are interested in chess, in the past you were politician that
>was "defending" against "campaigns".
I only defended myself and my opinions / point of view. What's wrong with that?
>
>Neither the one thing nor the other thing is right.
>Nobody starts a campaign. Nor has anything against YOU or your team, no matter
>WHICH TEAM we talk about.
>We talk about the things that have happened.
Yes, but some people like to criticize too much and try to change things on
purpose. I do not like that.
>
>> [Event "60/60"]
>> [Site "both k6/200 Mhz"]
>> [Date "1997.12.25"]
>> [Round "1"]
>> [White "MCP7"]
>> [Black "HIARCS6"]
>> [Result "1-0"]
>>
>> 1.e4 Nf6 {H6: 01 1...Nf6 = 0}
>> 2.e5 Nd5 {H6: 01 2...Nd5 = 0}
>> 3.d4 d6 {H6: 01 3...d6 = 0}
>> 4.c4 Nb6 {H6: 01 4...Nb6 = 0}
>> 5.f4 dxe5 {H6: 01 5...dxe5 = 0}
>> 6.fxe5 Nc6 {H6: 01 6...Nc6 = 0}
>> 7.Be3 Bf5 {H6: 01 7...Bf5 = 0}
>> 8.Nc3 e6 {H6: 01 8...e6 = 0}
>> 9.Nf3 Qd7 {H6: 01 9...Qd7 = 0}
>> 10.Be2 O-O-O {H6: 01 10...O-O-O = 0}
>> 11.O-O Bg4 {H6: 01 11...Bg4 = 0}
>> 12.c5 Nd5 {H6: 01 12...Nd5 = 0}
>> 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 {H6: 01 13...Qxd5 = 0}
>> 14.Ng5 Bxe2 {H6: 01 14...Bxe2 = 0}
>> 15.Qxe2 Nxd4 {H6: 01 15...Nxd4 = 0}
>> 16.Bxd4 Qxd4+ {H6: 01 16...Qxd4+ = 0}
>> 17.Kh1 Qd2 {H6: 01 17...Qd2 = 0}
>> 18.Qxd2 Rxd2 {H6: 01 18...Rxd2 = 0}
>> 19.Rxf7 Bxc5 {H6: 01 19...Bxc5 = 0}
>> 20.Nxe6 Bb6 {H6: 01 20...Bb6 = 0}
>> 21.Nxg7 Bd4 {H6: 01 21...Bd4 = 0}
>> 22.e6 Bxb2 {H6: 01 22...Bxb2 = 0}
>> 23.Raf1 c5 {H6: 08 23...c5 e7 Bxg7 Rxg7 Re8 Rxh7 Kd7 Re1 Rxa2 Kg1 =
>> -7}
>> 24.h4 Re2 {H6: 09 24...Re2 e7 Bxg7 Rxg7 Re8 Rxh7 R8xe7 Rxe7 Rxe7 Rc1 b6
>> g4 =
>> -23}
>> 25.Rb1 Be5 {H6: 09 25...Be5 Rfxb7 Rxa2 Nf5 Ra6 R7b5 Rxe6 Rxc5+ Kd8 Rxe5
>> Rxe5
>> Rb8+ Kc7 Rxh8 Rxf5 Rxh7+ Kb6 = -190}
>> 26.Rfxb7 Rxa2 {H6: 09 26...Rxa2 e7 Ra4 g3 Rb4 e8=Q+ Rxe8 R7xb4 cxb4
>> Nxe8 Kd8
>> Rxb4 Kxe8 = -254}
>> 27.Nf5 Ra6 {H6: 08 27...Ra6 R7b5 Ra1 Rxc5+ Kd8 Rxa1 = -428}
>> 28.R7b5 Rc6 {H6: 09 28...Rc6 Ne7+ Kc7 Rb7+ Kd6 Rd1+ Bd4 Nxc6 Kxc6 Rxa7
>> Re8
>> e7 h5 Rc1 = -428}
>> 29.Ne7+ Kc7 {H6: 09 29...Kc7 Ra5 Re8 Rxa7+ Kd6 Rbb7 Rxe7 Rxe7 Bf6 Rxh7
>> Kxe6
>> g4 = -431}
>> 30.Rb7+ Kd6 {H6: 10 30...Kd6 Rd1+ Bd4 Nxc6 Kxc6 Rxa7 h5 Ra6+ Kd5 Rf1 c4
>> e7
>> Re8 Ra5 = -415}
>> 31.Nxc6 Kxc6 {H6: 10 31...Kxc6 Rxa7 = -412}
>> 32.Rxa7 Re8 {H6: 10 32...Re8 Rxh7 Rxe6 Ra7 Kd5 g4 Rg6 Rd1+ Bd4 g5 =
>> -414}
>> 33.Rxh7 Rxe6 {H6: 10 33...Rxe6 g4 c4 Kg2 c3 Kf3 Bd6 Rc1 Rf6+ Ke2 Be5 =
>> -437}
>> 34.g4 c4 {H6: 09 34...c4 g5 = -451}
>> 35.Kg2 c3 {H6: 09 35...c3 Ra7 Kd5 h5 Re8 Rd1+ Ke6 Ra6+ Ke7 g5 Rf8 Rc6 =
>> -490}
>> 36.Kf3 Rf6+ {H6: 09 36...Rf6+ Ke4 Bg3 Kd3 Rf3+ Kc2 Be5 g5 Rf2+ Kd3 =
>> -477}
>> 37.Ke2 Rd6 {H6: 09 37...Rd6 Rd1 Rg6 Kf3 Rf6+ Ke4 Bf4 Kd3 Rg6 g5 Be5 =
>> -478}
>> 38.Rd1 Rg6 {H6: 09 38...Rg6 g5 = -489}
>> *
Hiarcs is a very strong program and play in a human like style, so it is
possible that I have expected those move considering the variation. Well, if you
change the hardware the moves will not be the same anymore, so it may be
different.
>>
>> Mchess computed in the 38th move for the first time !
Of course I have nothing against you.
I only stated my sincere point of view.
Sandro
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.