Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 09:13:15 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 09:18:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 01:00:44, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 10, 2003 at 22:44:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2003 at 19:54:43, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2003 at 17:40:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 08:22:22, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 03:22:44, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 21:18:39, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You've started what has turned out to be an enormous thread, and you've openly >>>>>>>>stated your credentials in doing so. Reading the responses, my sympathies lie >>>>>>>>with the other posters. I would like to ask, however, that you defend your >>>>>>>>perspective. If you truly believe that those who disagree need to reexamine the >>>>>>>>rules or their own logic, this shouldn't be hard to do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Roger >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Perhaps after reading the responses he realizes he's wrong. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Peter >>>>>> >>>>>>I doubt it. He posted due to a request, and wasn't intending to fight about it. >>>>>>Besides, he's been treated with contempt! Why should he be bothered to reply, >>>>>>only to be attacked by a pack of wolves? >>>>>> >>>>>>Terry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>He was attacked with facts and experience. I suspect he recognizes the concept >>>>>of "untenable position" pretty well... >>>> >>>>The _key_ word here is _attacked_ and that isn't the correct way to present your >>>>facts. It's insultive, and I doubt he intented to argue regardless of how the >>>>facts were presented. >>>> >>>>Although, I have no doubt he could make strong arguements that would have led to >>>>the suffocation of the board. So what we be the point? >>> >>> >>>_I_ did not attack anyone. So I don't know what you are talking about. >> >>You were not too friendly to say the least, and others were worse. > >Look at my original post in response to his. There was nothing >friendly or unfriendly about it. I simply pointed out flaws in his >understanding of the rules being used, as well as flaws in his understanding >of circumstances surrounding the event. > >> >> He >>>presented a conclusion that was mired in inaccuracies and bad assumptions >>>(He assumed FIDE rules were used when they are not.) His errors were pointed >>>out by me and several others. >> >>Yes, most who don't know a tenth what he knows! BTW the FIDE Rules should be >>enforced, and since they aren't in all situations, this should be changed. > >FIDE rules can't possibly apply in all cases. The computer can not call >the TD over. It can't write rules down on a scoresheet. It can't move >the pieces nor touch the clock. The rules for these issues have been around >for 35 years now. > > >> >>If he made an error it was within the context of the ICGA rules. He's right >>about the CC Olympiad. He's an expert at the highest level as a TD. >>BTW did you check his credentials? He's no rookie, he's had plenty of >>experience. > >Experience in _HUMAN_ events does not apply here. This is computer chess. >I have directed _many_ human events. Fortunately I have been involved with >many computer events, which he has not. Not true, but agreed not to the extent you have been involved. > > >> >>He really does know what he can and can't do. >> >>He's a programmer like yourself, and has developed Poki, the worlds top Poker >>Programme, and he is computer scientist with a PHD and to top it off a Canidate >>Master, who has arbitrated many high level tournaments, including computer >>chess. > >What computer chess events? None that I know of. IE none of the ICCA/ICGA/ACM >events, nor the Dutch tournaments, etc. He spoke of the Chess Olypiads, read it! > >> >>If he had caught the error himself, he would have called Shredder vs Jonny a >>draw, unless the ICGA said differently. > >That is not what he said. Re-read his post. It was wrong. He said both actually, I can read just fine, thanks! > > >> >>But he pointed out that 3rd repeat does not have to be a draw, however in the >>case of ICGA he normally wouldn't have the right to ignore the proplem or make >>an official decision on his own to say play on. But since the game wasn't caught >>in time he can rule with the body of the ICGA, if everyone is compliant to say >>the win stands, which apperently he and they and all the rest were. > >The decision was wrong. It was wrong during the game, it was wrong >after the game. It could have been corrected at any point. It could _still_ >be corrected... No, the parties agreed, and you know they will stand by this agreement, no matter how much it annoys you. > > >>In cases where there is really big problems, he's right that as an arbitor >>he does have a say, even in the ICGA if the ICGA allows him to exert his >>authority. >> >>However, this can be argued till the Cows Come Home. >>> >>>He should hardly expect to waltz in, make some comments that are really not >>>relevant to what we are talking about, and waltz out without any counterpoints >>>being made. >> >>He sure can, if he was asked to post the ICGA decision! And he did! > >And he was wrong... According to you, yes. > > >> >>As far as FIDE Rules are concerned, he can enforce them and if Computer Chess is >>exempt from FIDE Rules, that should change as of now! > >There is no "if". You have to first be involved in an event with computers >to understand why FIDE rules don't fit everywhere. Most do. But the ICGA >has made exceptions where appropriate, for good reason. If he doesn't know >what those exceptions are, and why they were made, that is hardly my problem. Yes no yes no who cares... > > >> >>It's absurd that a computer can't be subjected to the Official Rules of Chess! > >Why don't you first think about the problems? Computers are _not_ humans. I did! So the problem is that, a problem to be resolved. Someday the machines will hold their own tournaments, unless we keep machines handicapped idiots! > >> >>Third Repeat is the most tricky rule in chess and isn't mandatory, unless the >>draw is claimed. For computers this hasn't been addressed properly within the >>ICGA. > >The draw was claimed as well as a computer can claim it. The operator chose >to ignore the claim and let the opponent win. What would you do if a blind >player told his proxy to claim a repetition, but the proxy did not, letting >the blind player lose on time? Would _that_ be reasonable? That is what >happened in this case... And....You know I know this right? Well, I do! > >> >>Three fold repition of position is IMO the hardest rule to make clear, even more >>so than en passant! > >THe 3-fold repetition is a trivial rule to handle either as a player, or as >a TD. Yeah, whatever.., I sure it could allude you...in a human event! I catch them in GM games, and smile. > > >> >>It's of course optional too, and in this case computers haven't a problem in >>this area. > >It is not optional if the program claims it. Are you through with the didactics?
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.