Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:38:26 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? > OK, it is clear: I am a chess player and you are a programmer which makes also programs that are suppose to play chess. I mean they do until the score is reasonable and play until the end like a child will. To me the last part is not chess at all as there is no interest to find good moves, but only avoid mistakes. Chess is strategy, fantasy, good evaluation and tactics. When the game is strategically won, and the material gain is so high is simply boring or technique to win it. Not interesting at all... I am sorry, but if you insist on claiming the opposite, then you are not a chess player, but a PIECES MOVERS maybe like your program... I am not intendind to offend you, but to understand this is what makes a chess player and a pieces movers... >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. I am not talking about injustice. I am talking about a fight. Do you think there is a fight if the American indians would be facing U.S. Army today instead of Custer's...would you called a fight and a win to be proud of? Pls. do not always refer to Shredder...I am talking about future tournament to make them better and more people fun of them... Pls. try to understand the chess players too and not only the programmers like you. > 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 would state would be killed correctly if the opponents do not have bugs...unfortunately the humans players will not have bugs and would never buy such weak program. Do you really think such a program can teach something to any human playes? OK, maybe to lose correctly or to be mate correctly? > > > > > >> >>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. I am saying let's them resign on their own when they reach -10 like the commercial programs do. >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. Is it so difficult to understand that me, being a chess player would like to buy a chess program that can help me to improve my chess skill and not teach me to lose correctly? >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. That's the difference between me and you. If I see the game is lost. I am a piece down or see my position hopeless I shake the hand of my opponent and I resign. I do not want to be "insulted" to have been forcing someone to play "ridiculus" and hoping for "miracles" to gain Elo improvements. If I lose the game I do not deserve the right to get a better Elo. It is like to have the homework made by someone else and get a good job due to this. I do not learn, how can I hope to be able to do my job correctly. This to me is cheating. Pls. stop to refer to Shredder, I am talking about future tournaments. Pls. make them better in order to increase the people watching them and avoid chess players to laugh about chess programs... >If I win on time, >I simply used my time better, and time _is_ a part of the game. This is something else. The use of time is part of the game. > >Tournaments are about results, nothing else. OK, but there is a limit to that and a ethic too. Pls. avoid referring to Shredder. I was not in Graz, I did not decide anything. I only told my opinion on this matter as you did. I never contested any TD. If the opponent is stronger than me I am the first one to congratulate and to shake his hand. If he wins in a non moral way, I will not as I would prefer to lose than to do the same. I will not play my best against a child. It is better to have him getting fun of chess rather than being proud of winning against a child...I really do not understand how one could be proud of it... This is my style. Like it or not. > > > >> >>??????????????????????? >>I will never understand this! >> Sandro
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.