Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 00:04:02 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2003 at 22:38:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 12, 2003 at 13:12:46, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 12, 2003 at 10:35:00, Anthony Cozzie 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? >>>> >>>>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! >>>> >>>>I am clearly exagerrating, but it seems for some people this would be >>>>acceptable... >>>> >>>>??????????????????????? >>>>I will never understand this! >>>> >>>>Sandro >> >>Hi, >>> >>>As a human, I get annoyed when people continue when they are down a rook or >>>more. I get _really_ annoyed when they beat me anyway :) And I can see your >>>point, its something of an insult: the other player is saying that they can win >>>even though they have a horribly lost position. >>> >>>However, computer-computer games are different IMHO. Computers don't have egos. >>> They never get tired. Why not let it go all the way to checkmate? >> >>I was not referring to 2003 WCCC, but I was proposing something for the next >>tournaments. >> >>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? > >I don't understand the request. The request is simple: If we do not want to see the computer tournaments as a private affair for the programmers and look to get involved more people to watch the games and make them more interested/fun about these events, then we should try to understand what they think and what they like to see. What I know is that they would like to see the programs play more likely to human players and therefore resign hopeless positions. Which are hopeless positions? To me when you are a piece down, but since this would leave to many chances for recovering the disadvantage, than I think we better increase that to a higher level leaving chances nearly to 0. So than -10, which is equal to 2 rooks or a queen down seems more reasonable. This is where I make the statement. I am not saying just because I am requesting this everybody must agree. Mine is only a request to improve this field by making more people more attracted to it and not only computer chess lovers. I only ask to think about this. I have nothing to gain in this. I do it only because as I said I am a true lover of chess and computer chess. This is the reason why I have spent to much time and money in this field. You can say I do not agree. It's OK, but you cannot say it is not worth to think over it, I guess. >A program has _always_ been able to resign >on its own, at any point it chooses. The operator is more limited in what >he can do. But if a program says "I resign" then the TD has always accepted >that at any event I have played in. If I wanted to resign for my program (I >have not had to do that since mine has self-resigned for years) I had to clear >it with the TD. But not if the program made the choice. > >However, it seems you want to _force_ this to be the policy, Yes, this is the idea to make improvements. This is my opinion of course and I do believe many people would agree with it. I am proposing something before the tournament starts, to make it the same to everybody. >and I don't agree OK, you do not have to agree. It is up to you to do it. Simply think why I am asking this, before you decide. >with that, particularly with sudden-death time controls. OK, than at blitz, even if I think that that would be good as well we could leave it as it is; I mean up to the mate. > >>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? >> >>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? >> >>This is only a proposal for the next tournaments, to make them more attractive >>for the real chess players. >> >>Sandro >> >>>Do you >>>think you deserve to win if your program can't play a simple mate in 8? I thin we deserve the win if the opponent is not able to beat us and or to ask a draw. >>> >>>anthony Sandro
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.