Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:32:05 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 13:41:06, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 19:49:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 16:45:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 15:14:00, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:45:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 10:16:51, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>This is too subtle for me. It is an event between machines with the operator >>>>>>acting as a go between (a mistake in my view). The machine said draw, >therefore the operator must claim the draw. As far as I can see it just >>>>>>another 'move' indicated by the machine and the operator has no right to move >>>>>>for the machine. >>>>> >>>>>By the same reasoning, the machine claimed the draw incorrectly, so >>>>>the operator has no right to claim the draw correctly, so he had no choice >>>>>but to play on (or resign). >>>>> >>>>>QED >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP >>>> >>>>I do not understand what you are saying. >>>> >>>>My point is based on the following: >>>> >>>>1.The contest was between machines. >>> >>>No, between chess engines. >> >>Please show me that distinction in the ICGA tournament rules. It is a >>game between two computers playing chess. Nothing more, nothing less. >>Further arguments are simply obfuscation. > >This is your opinion. If the TD thinks otherwise there should be a reason. > >> >>> >>>>2.The machine in question was the entity that was the engine plus the chessbase >>>>GUI. >>> >>>OK, but the engine was playing, not the chess GUI. >>> >>>>3.It would have been better if the machines played without human interference, >>>>but failing this the operator should not have been able to influenece the >>>>result. >>> >>>This was allowed as the operator should have been the one to ask the TD to be >>>allowed to resign...see Darsen post which is complete... >> >>Operators should not resign. Programs should resign. Then there is no >>ambiguity whatsoever. But in this case, the program did its part. It >>popped up a dialog box that had to be dismissed before the game could >>continue. The program can hardly call the TD over _itself_. > >OK, here we agree and it shoud state "I resign". > >However since the programmer can fix the value for the program to accept a draw >if this is set a -50 the score evaluation of 0.00 will be ignored by the chess >engine and the program would not ask for a draw even if able to do it. >Do you agree on this? >So, to claim that a 3-fold repetion is automatically a draw is your >interpretation of the rules, not the rule. > >If you state that we were lucky we won (a won game) simply because the opponent >program did not ask for the draw, I agree, but no more than that. > >Also you must agree with me that the aim of the Championship is to show (if >possible) which program is the strongest and to me this was clear after the >defeat against Fritz...this is why I was sure we would have won. No The aim of the ssdf is to find which program is the strongest. The aim of world championship is to find a winner. 11 games are not enough to find which program is the strongest. I believe that shredder was the strongest combination of software and hardware in the tournament inspite of having less processors than fritz but Fritz was the right champion to choose. Uri
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.