Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 13:23:08 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 15:38:26, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 Good Post and to the point Sandro. Thanks! For obvious reasons I'm retiring from this horrid debate;/ All The Best, Terry
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.