Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:19:45 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 14:32:05, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Good choice of words. Anybody that believes that a tournament finds the best program is really out of touch. I've said this many times myself. Some might _wish_ it would find the best program. But "wish in one hand crap in the other, see which fills up first". :)
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.