Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 04:21:10 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 22:14:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I was told no and many people are trying to tell you the same, but it seems your interests in this matter are higher than mine... I am a chess player and not a programmer even if I do make programs. Not chess programs. So you are claiming that since we did not see the 3 moves repetition and since our opponent did not claim the draw which he could do. Pls. note that this in chess games is an option and not forced. I think it should be the same with the computer too. Chess is the human way to play it and not otherwise. The computers should do the same and not have different rules. However what the federation states for me is fine. Then since our opponent did not request the draw repetions we should have stop the game? This is pure nonsense!! Next step would be to advise the opponent not to make specific moves to avoid mate in x moves? I agree we should change the rules to make tham more clear to avoid these problems, but we should ALSO LET THE PROGRAM RESIGN BEFORE THE REACH POSITIONS EVEN MY CAT CAN WIN! Maybe you are not a strong chess player, so I hope you understand what I mean... >> >>>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. So your programs are without bugs? come on... > >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. I think it is disonest to make such claims. To continuo over lost games is ridiculus...that's not chess. Do you know how to play chess or only how to make programs? > > >> >>>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. I think it is incompetent to make claims without knowing thing is reality! It is also stupid to comment also other people decision without knowing things as they really went. >>> >>>There is _no_ wayh to justify this, and the 2003 WCCC title is forever >>>marred by this stupidity... I hope the moderator will do something because you are insulting people here. >> >>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. I think you have drinked too much... > >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... Again this is only your opinion. I was not there and I have a different opion. I am not insulting anyone which have a different opinion. >>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. This is really a bottom hit...you are unfair...I want to be kind...otherwise you would have me forewer... > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. triple ugh... > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>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. > Well, I am a chess player (I hope you know what it means) and see things from a play point of view, not bugs...+20 is more than won to me...maybe not to you... >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... That's a great idea!! Maybe this would give you more than 1% chances with me... Sandro > >... > > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Sandro >> >>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.