Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:14:19 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 13:54:10, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 12:59:33, Robert Hyatt 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. >>> >>>What happened was allowed by the agreed (by all partecipants) rules. >> >>You are simply wrong. > >I was not there but what I wrote/being told makes you wrong, not me. Nope. The Johnny operator was told to claim a draw. He chose not to as he thought Shredder should win. That is _not_ an option. There is no discussion about that point. The operator is _passive_. His refusing to claim the draw was _not_ passive. He admitted it. > >>The operator can _not_ choose to play a move he >>wants to play. He _must_ play what the computer says to play. And in this >>case the computer said "I claim a draw" > >I was told that the program did not "claim a draw", this is why you are wrong. Aha. You want to "split hairs". The program is not the GUI? That's a crock. The "player" is a combination of the computer, the GUI, the program, the operating system, and anything else used. Shredder might well be the best program there. But that means _nothing_ here. It had a bug. I lost games due to bugs, I drew won games due to bugs. Its just a part of chess. Had I been sitting across the table from Johnny, _I_ would have claimed the draw and refused to play on since my program had obviously made a mistake due to a bug that was my fault. To accept such a dishonest win taints the event, the program, the author and the host. > >>and the operator chose to ignore that >>and force the game to continue. >> >>That is _definitely_ against the rules. It has _always_ been against the >>rules. The TD was incompetent for making such a stupid decision. >> >>There is _no_ wayh to justify this, and the 2003 WCCC title is forever >>marred by this stupidity... > >I think this is quite unfair to the TD director. >I will not follow you in making this kind of judgements. It is not in my style. >I accept the decision by the TD director whichever it is. > >>I think it time for the ICGA to fall apart, or else find a good TD. IM Mike >>Valvo _never_ allowed such nonsense at all the events he ran. Jaap simply has >>no business doing this, it is "beyond his abilities". > >This is really unfair. I had a different opinion of you being fair. > How many examples of poor TD-manship would you like? _every_ event has yet another Jaap blunder. I went to 20+ years of computer chess events with IM Mike Valvo TDing most of them. We _never_ had this sort of nonsense. Men were men. Rules were rules. No longer, apparently. But if you want some examples of his nonsensical decisions, just ask. >>> >>>Maybe we can improve the rules, but we MUST followed and accept them once we >>>have accepted them. Both in the good or bad. >> >>Everybody accepted the rules. But the TD did _not_ follow them. >> >> >>> >>>There is no more we can say on thim matter. I understand we may have different >>>opinions, but the rules are the rules. >> >>And the rules were broken... > >It seems this is your point of view, not everybody's.... Again, from someone on the team that benefitted. The human operator may _not_ interfere in the game. The rules are _clear_. They _always_ have been. > >> >> >>> >>>Anything more on this matter may be just misleading. >> >>It is misleading to talk about a ridiculous decision that prevented Fritz >>from winning an event it deserved to win? Oh, I forgot which program you >>were involved with. :) > >I did not took any decision. Am I free to tell my point of view or only people >that are on one side can? > >> >>> >>>Does anyone really believe that we would have been allowed to win the game if >>>this was against the rules? >> >> >>Yes, because we watched it _happen_. > >We are not sponsored by anyone...everybody know it...is seems you do not. > >> >> >>> >>>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. >>> >>>I am wondering if this is a chess site or something else... >> >>I would be more interested to know if the WCCC 2003 was a chess tournament, >>or "somethign else" which is what it appeared to be. > >If you are a better programmer why you do not show it to us? What does my being a "better programmer" have to do with anything? Do you simply want to shift the topic to something that is a bit more favorable to you? I didn't mention _anything_ about "better programmer". This is about rules and nothing else. > >> >>> >>>I stated that we would have won the championship no matter anything and we did. >> >>Ugh... > >Well, I did...people here wrote my post just after loosing to Fritz. If rules were followed you would _not_ have won. You would have been 1/2 point behind Fritz and the tournament would have been over. Your predictions count for one point less than nothing. Predictions are cheap and meaningless. As I said, Shredder might have been the best program there. But it didn't honestly win the event. This will be forever tainted. > >> >>> >>>Think about how I could knew this from a chess point of view instead of making a >>>lot of noise on nonsense things. >> >> >>double ugh... >> >> >> >>> >>>Pls. speak about chess and chess games, engines etc...otherwise change sport. >> >>I think I'll go puke... > >Why not horses? How about Karate? I talk that language too, although it has nothing to do with this lousy event management... ... >> >> >> >>> >>>Sandro > >Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.