Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:04:34 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 03:57:41, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 23:47:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 13, 2003 at 16:31:46, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 2003 at 13:44:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>The request is: >>> >>>when there is a tournament with live games (games that people which are not in >>>the tournament hall can see), then FORCE every program to resign when they reach >>>-10 to avoid showing boring parts of the game where the outcome is sure 999 >>>times out of 1000. >> >>I would not object if FIDE were to adopt that rule. I once watched a master >>try to beat an IM in an ending that was theoretically winnable, but the master >>obviously had no idea how to do it, and the IM kept "escaping". But they played >>to the 50 move rule before the draw was official, as the IM could not force >>a draw and the master would not accept/offer a draw. Technically, it was his >>right according to the rules. >> >>I would much prefer to see ICGA events use automatic interfaces. Then there is >>_never_ any need to resign. Let the programs play to mate. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>If there are not live games, then let the programs resign when they want (the >>>team wants with the TD operator approval. >>> >>>>If the _computer_ says "I resign" >>>>then the game ends. And you can set the resignation threshold to any value >>>>you want. >>> >>>OK, but my request is change the rules to force everybody to resign on -10 >>>without cheating. >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>I agree, but it should be made in a clear way that nobody cannot understand >>>otherways. Your latest one is OK! >>> >>>>The >>>>TD only prevents the _operator_ from resigning, or offering/accepting a draw >>>>outside of the program's frame of reference. >>> >>>I agree. This is why I am asking to change it in a way which will be clear for >>>everybody. >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>I agree, unless the score is less than -10 and it has been agreed to change the >>>rule. In that case the program should resign and nobody should complain. >>> >>>>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 saying that ALL programs should be made the same way as yours. >>> >>>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>I was not saying something different. I was talking in general and not referrign >>>to your program. >>> >>>>However, remember that >>>>I have probably watched 100X more computer vs computer games than you have, >>> >>>It is possible. I think I have seen between 50,000 to 60,000. How many did you >>>see? >> >>I have no idea. I have watched them every night for 8+ years, plus off and >>on during the day and on weekends... >> >> >> >>> >>>>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... >>> >>>OK, of course a bug can change the outcome, but how many chances there are today >>>of such a bug in that specific case? >>>If there is 1 out of 1000, is it worth to do it? > >In other sports, they have changed things to make them more "nice" for people to >see. >This is just an idea. >It can be rejected, no problems. > >>The point is that the cost of doing this is zero in a good event. No humans >>have to type, the computers do it all automatically. And since there is no >>"pain" let 'em play. >> >> >>>My answer is no. >>>Pls. remember that today programs are much stronger than the ones in the 70' and >>>this reduces the chances to recover a big disdvantage. >>> >>>>>>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. >>> >>>Exactly. This is what I am saying and let's set this at -10 which is a clear >>>advantage for the opponent. >> >>Clear yes, but I have seen -10's turn to draws. Not often, but not zero >>either. >> >> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Well, first of all I am speking of +10 (-10) and considering the stronger >>>programs there are today I think this is a nearly safe value. of course it is >>>not 100% sure, but very close to that. >>> >>>>>>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. >>> >>>Nothing has only advantages or disadvantages. I think the disadvantage is that >>>you would leave a quite rare possibility not to lose a game or to win it, but as >>>an exchange the games will be more interesting to chess players who would like >>>to see the computers play more like the strong human players. >>> >>>It is an idea for improvements. If we alway keep things like they are we may not >>>improve anything... >>> >>>>>>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... >>> >>>OK, but now we are in 2003. I think in 33 years things have changed a lot so the >>>programs are much stronger and the hardware is quite faster... >> >>I played a commercial program a few months ago and was a rook and piece plus >>a couple of pawns down. But the score kept climbing until it finally hit >>zero. But the checks could not be stopped, although the king could reach nearly >>every square on the board making detecting the repetition _very_ difficult. >>So difficult neither program saw it for a good while, but it eventually was >>drawn... > >OK, but how many chances there are that with such material one is not able to >win? Think about it. People draw to "inside straights" also. The odds are very bad. But sometimes it pays off. > >>Takw queens off, the deep draws are less rare, unless there is a possiblity >>that the weaker side can walk his king into a position where it has no legal >>moves, and then uses its remaining rook to check the opponent and he can't take >>it without turning it into a stalemate. >> >>Both of those cases happen. > >I did not say no, only that it is quite rare and that it will become more and >more. > >Anyway it is just an idea to attract more people going in the direction they >would prefer. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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.