Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 01:25:33 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 18:16:30, Mridul Muralidharan 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? >>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? >>> >>>anthony > >Hi Sandro, Hi Mridul, > > Thanks for this suggestion. Well, my problem is that I really love chess and computer chess, so I am always thinking how to improve things. Normally I focus on my opening book, but I also would like to see chess and computer chess become more popular in all countries. This ia my aim and this is not related to Shredder. Unfortunately some people always try to see things linked to Shredder, but this is not the case. Even if I think the decision which was taken by the TD in Graz is correct and I do always accept the TD, still it is not nice to see people complaining about a victory. I have worked so much to achive that result and this, is somehow reducing the happiness of the achivement. I hope people will understand what I mean. So, I am thinking what we can do to avoid such problems to us or others in the future and at the same time try to improve other things as well. Thanks for understanding. >The next version of mess will hopefully have this >feature : the resign threashold being dynamically adjusted based on a static >config file value. > It is always good to get a end-user's suggestions and perspective since >programmers usually end up being focussed and confined to a narrow world of code >, performance , etc. > Ofcourse , I do know that you are part of computer chess history and this >makes your suggestions more thought provoking. Thanks, you are too good on me... > > This feature , will be based on my programs eval - not what the opponent says >! I hope this will make mess more enjoyable to play against. > > I have seen IM's getting pissed off when mess does not resign even in >throughyly hopeless positions - I should have implemented this at that time >itself ! Shows how blind I can be until someone shows me the obvious ! Well, mine is just and idea which can be improved, of course. > >Thanks and Regards >Mridul Regards 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.