Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 09:28:31 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 ? 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. > >Amir > > I saw the mate coming Amir, I saw what Shredder had to do to achieve it while watching it on ICC. I predicted the moves ( Rxf7 was easy to spot forcing the mating line), without the use of a programme, until I saw the repitition...which shocked me! Terry
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.