Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 09:46:16 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 12:35:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 12:13:15, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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! >>> > >Do you know what a "chess olympiad" is? Didn't think so. Comuter Chess Olypiad, don't try being condescending with me, it won't work! > > >>>> >>>>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. > >The "parties" did _not_ agree. The "parties" are every participant in the >tournament. You know exactly what I mean, don't make a stupid game of it! > > >>> >>> >>>>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! > >And you are simply wrong for thinking that is OK. I never said what transpired was ok, but that the ruling in the end with the permission of Frans Morsch etc., was just! > >There _is_ a specific rule, adopted by the ICGA and approved by every >participant that joined the event, that prevented this very behavior. Circles....I already agreed that this was an error!! > > >>> >>>> >>>>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? > >Are you through with the nonsense? ARE YOU!@@#$%
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.