Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:44:21 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 03:04:02, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 _still_ don't understand the request. If the _computer_ says "I resign" then the game ends. And you can set the resignation threshold to any value you want. The ICGA rules simply make the _operator_ ask the TD if the _operator_ wants to resign for the program. But if the program resigns itself, there is no discussion at all, the game simply ends. It has always been this way... If the program can offer or accept draws, no TD action is needed. The TD only prevents the _operator_ from resigning, or offering/accepting a draw outside of the program's frame of reference. The program can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. And the TD can't do a thing about it. IE I can say "I resign" and if the TD doesn't like it, fine. But I'm not moving. So we sit until the flag falls. That's why I don't understand your request, because it is already within the rules if the _program_ handles it. Mine does... > >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. Note that I already resign in appropriate cases. However, remember that I have probably watched 100X more computer vs computer games than you have, thanks to my ICC presence for 8+ years. I have seen my program draw from +9 when it missed a way deep perpetual. So in comp vs comp games, I don't resign, because in the middle of a game I can't say "hmm. this is not a queen-type ending where perpetuals are common, so I want to resign at +4, while when queens are on I would prefer to wait until +10 before I give up. But we don't allow on-the-fly adjustments, so I can't do that. And I'd rather err on the side of safety. IE if you get to +9 and fail to find a perpetual, that really is your bug for missing it, not mine for playing on to allow you to miss it... > >>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. > The problem with forcing a resignation threshold is it _must_ be a safe one. I can provide games where either my program or the opponent was at +9 and drew by missing a very deep perpetual or one of "those" stalemates that are so hard to see. >>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. > I understand your request. But notice my response. I want the _programs_ to win/lose/draw the game, not some hokey rule that has a critical exception nobody thought about. >>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. I disagree. In 1970, at the first computer chess event ever held, I watched a game between Coko and Genie, where Coko did not discern between mate in N and mate in N+1, and kept playing a mate in 2 move every time it had to move. It eventually lost the game. You not only have to reach a won position, you have to _win_ it as well. That is the point for the accepted rules of chess. FIDE, you might notice, does _not_ have a forced resignation threshold in their rules... > >>>> >>>>anthony > >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.