Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:41:52 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 13:20:29, Sandro Necchi wrote: >Robert, > >I think it is not the case to continuo. I will stay on my ideas as you are going >to stay on yours. > >I am interested on winning games on the board and not in the forum. > >I am sorry, but I do trust more Darse than you, as well as the TD in Graz. > >I only hope that in future the programmers will agree to stop the games when the >score is not lower than -10 to avoid "ridiculus". > >By being a chess player I find to continuo playing "extremely lost games" >offensive and not useful at all to show how strong the chess programs have >become. > >I am saying this here now to avoid someone would link this to Shredder games. > >I am a true chess and computer chess lover and hate to see non senses like >playing extremely lost positions. > >How can a programmer be proud of not losing or winning a game extremely lost? Let me turn that around: "How can a programmer be proud of winning when his opponent resigned in a game he might possibly not win?" That is the case at hand, in fact. Had the program resigned before that point, you would have won, no uproar would have occurred, no injustice would have been done, and all would be well. But the rules of chess do _not_ require that the opponent resign. The players are allowed to play until a rule of chess ends the game in draw or mate or time forfeit. The moral of the story is "debug better". > >Does it makes sense a statement like "well, this year my program did score very >well as we scored 5 out of 8 while last year I scored 0. The first game it went >down -12, but the opponent had a bug and we could win the game. The second one >the opponent had a mate in 12, but a bug made the program lose 3 pieces and we >won. The third game we won with 3 pieces less because the opponent program got a >bug that removed all the hashtables use and so on..." > >Wow there is a lot to be proud! He could certainly be proud of the fact that he showed up with a program that could play correctly and not screw up due to various bugs that were not found due to lack of proper testing. > >I am clearly exagerrating, but it seems for some people this would be >acceptable... What is acceptable is for a program to win the games on its own. Not via an operator making decisions contrary to the rules, and the TD allowing such rule violations to stand. I have lost games due to bugs. I have lost on time due to bugs. That is just a part of the game. As a human I have won _many_ games a rook or queen down, when my opponent either ran out of time or made a gross blunder. I don't feel any better or worse about winning on time than I do by mating my opponent. If I win on time, I simply used my time better, and time _is_ a part of the game. Tournaments are about results, nothing else. > >??????????????????????? >I will never understand this! > >Sandro
This page took 0.05 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.