Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 07:57:21 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 05:35:56, Amir Ban wrote: >On December 14, 2003 at 04:10:02, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 13, 2003 at 17:49:47, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 2003 at 07:32:04, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On December 13, 2003 at 05:24:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 13, 2003 at 03:32:01, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 12, 2003 at 16:59:17, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>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? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>first of all thank for the friendly discussion. I undestand your point of view >>>>>>and I do respect it as I do with everybody points of view. >>>>>>Still I do not agree with you...see below. >>>>>> >>>>>>>The point is, even if the eval is -10, I am under no obligation to resign. >>>>>> >>>>>>Correct. >>>>>>I am asking to change the rule to force a program to resign when the score goes >>>>>>down to -10 (a mean more or less a queen and 2 rooks down, to summarize). >>>>> >>>>>The problem is that with the new rule programmers have no problem to change >>>>>their evaluation and never show a score of more than -9.999 pawns against >>>>>themselves even in case of mate. >>>> >>>>Ok, this should be verified with a secret position before the tournament start. >>>>If a programmer is found as cheating, than unless he can demostrate it is due to >>>>a bug for that specific position it will be disqualified. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>It is easy to do it for me by dividing all scores by 10 so 99.99 that is mate in >>>>>one today becomes 9.999 >>>>> >>>>>The only way to implement it correctly is if an external program does the >>>>>evaluation. >>>> >>>>Maybe. Mine is a proposal. Maybe there is a better idea to handle this. >> >>Hi, >>>> >>> >>>In WCCC 2001 Shredder lost a game to Junior where it was showing +6 at some >>>point. >> >>I know it very well. >> >>> >>>The rule at WCCC is that the TD must allow resignation or agreed draws. E.g. the >>>draw Junior-Fritz was already agreed several moves back, but the TD wanted to >>>see the rooks off before giving consent. I think that Jonny was not allowed to >>>resign, and rightly so. In the critical phase of the game black had mate threats >>>of its own, and with the sort of bugs Shredder was suffering, even a loss was >>>not inconceivable. >>> >>>It was noted by several after that game that given that operators are not >>>allowed to resign or draw when they want to, it's ridiculous to allow them to >>>lose deliberately. >> >>Amir that is all close and past now. >>I am making proposals for the next tournament to make thinks more clear to >>everybody. I think that what turned out did show that things were not fully >>clear as there were too many different opinions. I do not agree with your >>opinion, but I respect it. >> >>My proposal is: >> >>1. Let's change the rule (when the tournaments have live games; when there are >>people looking them other than those in the hall) to force all programs to >>resign when they are at -10 or lower. >>2. Since the chances that these games turned our to be a draw or change the >>outcome are nearly 0, let's avoid showing parts of games which are not played in >>human tournaments and not interested from a chess point of view. I think -10 is >>a good value to avoid maybe 1 game out of 1000 to change the outcome. >> >>Of course without cheating... >> >>P.N. The bug in Shredder has been fixed since several days, so my proposal has >>nothing to do with Shredder. >> >>The reason of the proposal is that people watching these games are continuosly >>saying why program x is not resigning and switching to other games as that part >>of the game is not important at all. >> > >I agree with this part. The problem however is the reverse: the programs are >just too damn smart for ordinary people. They will say -8 based on a deep >continuation and resign, leaving many viewers mystified. Homework for you boys >and girls: why did program X resign ? How many can see the mate in >Shredder-Jonny ? Or, viewing the position and seeing that black has mate-in-one >threats, even conclude that white is winning ? OK, I guess then I am not an ordinary person as I saw it was mate in x moves even if I did not count them exactly (I was only looking and so I did not try to see how many moves). >The first report I got after the >reptition was from a kibitzer who said excitedly: "Shredder is now losing", >which turned out to be a gross exaggeration. The TD's are mindful of this and >want to see games played until the t's are crossed and i's dotted. OK, but many of them are not so strong players and we are going to have stronger chess programs players who can see much better than the TD from a chess evaluation point of view soon if not already... Sandro >Amir > > >>This is just a proposal. >>If you programmers do not agree, then forget it. >> >>P.N. I like the way your program play. I find it fun! >> >>>Amir >> >>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.