Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 13:59:17 12/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
>My point is: > >1. Since the programs now are much stronger than 20 years ago, why not change >the rule about resigning and let them resing when they are down -10? >2. It is true that a bug may help the program which is lost, but which are the >chances today? Is it correct to say 1 every 1000? If this is true, why not >concentrate to improve their play on the first part of the game rather then >hoping to be extremely lucky in the endgame? The point is, even if the eval is -10, I am under no obligation to resign. In fact, I have a very small chance to draw or win. Why should I give up my 0.001 point? The burden of proof is on you here, not me. >Yes, it is true that they do not get tired, but the people watching these games >do and they would switch to another game as that is of no interest anymore when >the advantage is so high. >This is what I do and I do believe I am not the only one. >I guess we all want to have more people attracted by chess and chess programs, >so why not give them something they would prefer? I agree - I wouldn't bother watching it, because its really _boring_. But that is the whole marvel of the thing - they are two computers, let them duke it out. If Zappa gets a losing position at CCT6, I'll just observe another game or chat with the author or do something else. And if I get a winning position, I won't complain about them playing it out till the end. anthony P.S. I'm not attacking Shredder as WCCC03 champion here. I think the TD made the wrong decision, but that is yesterday's news as far as I'm concerned. I'm just stating that I think in computer-computer games the usual sportsmanship related reasons for resigning do not apply.
This page took 0.01 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.