Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:32:30 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 13:41:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > > Really? Then you have a problem then sir, one which needs no explaining to the readers. No matter what the damn rules say, this attitude reeks! > >> >>??????????????????????? >>I will never understand this! >> >>Sandro
This page took 0.02 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.