Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 14:12:58 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 17:08:26, Matthew Hull wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 16:59:18, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 11, 2003 at 16:37:29, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On December 11, 2003 at 16:14:15, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On December 11, 2003 at 15:52:33, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 11, 2003 at 15:30:46, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 11, 2003 at 15:02:44, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 11, 2003 at 14:32:30, Terry McCracken 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's fresh air to me, bub. Antinomianism is what stinks. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're an disingenuous cad and I can imagine you would attempt to play me after >>>>>>you were a Queen down, as you're an arrogant self-serving fool! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Some folks have a problem with legal chess. I defeated an expert once with the >>>>>Grob, winning a piece with a cheapo trap. A swindle is as good as a brilliancy >>>>>on the crosstable. He was cheesed off royally, aiming many dirty looks at me >>>>>for playing such a crap opening. Maybe you and he are related. >>>> >>>>"Crooktables" is more like it! >>> >>> >>>It would be interesting to watch you play in a real tournament. With your short >>>fuse, you would continually be asked the question, "Is that your hair or did >>>your head explode?" >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>And you have the gall to accuse me of this!? >>>> >>>>Matthew Hull: "Antinomianism is what stinks." >>>> >>>>Main Entry: an·ti·no·mi·an >>>>Pronunciation: "an-ti-'nO-mE-&n >>>>Function: noun >>>>Etymology: Medieval Latin antinomus, from Latin anti- + Greek nomos law >>>>Date: 1645 >>>>1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is >>>>of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation >>>>2 : one who rejects a socially established morality >>>>- antinomian adjective >>>>- an·ti·no·mi·an·ism /-mE-&-"ni-z&m/ noun >>>> >>>> >>>>It appears you cast a heavy reflection, don't look too closely. >>> >>>Shouldn't that be "shadow"? Your metaphor is flawed, I think. (At least you >>>didn't call me a vampire.) >> >>I mean both...and yes you are a VAMPIRE, at least a VAMP! >>> >>>Basic textual interpretation dictates that the meaning of a word is defined by >>>the context. In this you have failed in that the use of this word in the >>>dicussion relates to the ignoring of, and abhorrence for, THE RULES. >> >>Bullocks.... > > >I believe that's supposed to be "bollocks", since "bullocks" makes no sense in >the context. Perhaps communicating in English is not your strong suit. Careful how low you go, people might step on you! > > > >>and you know it! What was I to infer from such stupid sarcasm?! >>Certainly not what you stated above! Double Talk is just THAT! >>> >>>A cheapo only wins if the opponent does not see it. Yours is a definite loser. >>>:) >>> >>>Nice try, though. >> >>No not a nice try, the truth dunderhead! TILT! YOU LOSE! >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>??????????????????????? >>>>>>>>>>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.