Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:31:24 12/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2003 at 09:38:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 16, 2003 at 02:12:24, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 15, 2003 at 23:00:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 15, 2003 at 15:45:18, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On December 14, 2003 at 23:07:59, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 14, 2003 at 19:53:22, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 14, 2003 at 13:26:33, Richard Sutherland wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Well, I know you all probably know this already, but although Shredder is the >>>>>>>World Champion I am a little surprised at the ease with which it is crushing >>>>>>>Chess Tiger 15 in my mini-match right now. I am playing an auto232 match between >>>>>>>two identical PC's (Intel 2.54Gb) an game in one-hour and Shredder is leading >>>>>>>5-0 with two draws at this time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Wonder if there is some tweaking I need to do? >>>>>> >>>>>>Shredder 7.04 is clearly the class of the field of the current crop of programs. >>>>>>It seems from looking over the games from the WC. The new Shredder will still be >>>>>>the top class program again on the SSDF IMO over Fritz. >>>>>> >>>>>>Any word when the new Shredder will be sold? It is the only program I will buy >>>>>>anymore. The play of Fritz has not made me want to shell out 100 bucks. >>>>> >>>>>Why not? Technically it won WCCC 2003. Sure Shredder has the title, but I don't >>>>>really think a person believes it deserves it other than the actual Shredder >>>>>team. >>>> >>>>The majority of the people did, not otherwise! Only a few people were against >>>>and they were very against. >>>> >>>>This is unbelievable! >>> >>>No it isn't. >> >>I am referring to the fact that someone tells that only the Shredder team >>support this. >>How can one can make such statements? >>How does someone knows what nearly all people think about that? > >I assume they made conclusions based on the discussions here and r.g.c.c >not to mention other computer chess forums. Very few have sided with the TD >in the decision he made... It would interest me how somebody could be happy with the illegal decision by the ICGA TD board in Graz. Even those who favor a de facto validity post festum [cough] could not prove that the decision was based on _anything_ legal or thinkable as legal. Because the basic guideline of the so called ordered 'passivity' of the operator clearly was violated in this case. a) by operator of Jonny and later on by the TD and then the whole TD board. Also by those who refused to appeal. Also these people are responsible for the illegal decision; with their protest they could have healed the malpractice. NB that the violation of the 'passivity' wasn't discussed as unsportiveness yet but in fact it is a clear case of misbehaviour. The question is how someone could defend such a mess. Please let me comment on that aspect in particular because it's a genuinely psychological question. I think we can all learn from this case and we don't need any kind of bashing at all. Wellness so to speak is always good for everybody. An athlet who wins Gold Medals and the old man in his wheel chair. Wellness! > > >> >>I can accept that one say, like you, that you do not agree, but one can speak >>only for himself. > >I would agree unless one quotes direct statements made by others in an >argument. I think you made a sensational statement here. But this is such a case where academics can be helpful for the rest of the population. Thanks so much, Bob Hyatt. We have the following chain of events. Foul Play against the passivity law -> Tolerance by the ICGA TD decision -> then the affirmation by the TD board -> then the claim of a Canadian expert arbiter that all was good -> then the decent referring of the Shredder book author to this arbiter expert, whome he believed _more_ than the n-time Wch Hyatt, participant in m-time tournaments etc pp. May it be allowed that I express the following? In case of apparent violation of a basic law in computerchess the case cannot be healed by the confirmation even by the Pope himself. Not to speak of arbiters. The operator who refused to draw because he wanted that Shredder won the game committed such a 'crime' [meaning the offense against the laws] that in principle also a bare-naked lay could give the final verdict. No need to have a 30 years plus experience or academic titles. We have the ridiculous situation that the defender of the TD decision here, the Shredder book author, a very honest man, does never exactly say what he is really defending. He says the decision by the TD, which he would NEVER doubt in his life-time. And that is a very noble position. But if one takes into consideration what the TD had decided, one realizes that the ICGA TD tolerated fould play by the operator. Because a three fold rep IS a draw by definition, wheter the operator thinks it's ok or not. There is absolutely no choice for anybody to deny that draw. In special the operator can't force the TD by simply making another move and allegedly so to destroy the draw. Since the Law says that THEN the TD must order the taking back of the further moves until the earlier position - which remains a draw... I am 100% certain, that the very honest sportsman Sandro N. would refuse to accept the Wch title if he had to defend such a false behaviour by the Jonny operator. But Sandro is always refering to Darse, the arbiter expert, who had confirmed his ok with the TD decision. But poor Darse simply didn't know the Law of Passivity - unfortunately. If he had known he would never had expressed his confirmation! So, we can see, how human beings can easily be misled by the false respect for alleged experts who in fact erred in basic questions. Moral of the Story: 1. Before you rely on the titles you should better read the arguments of the alleged expert. 2. You should never blindly trust the experts. Always do think for yourself - if you can... > > >> >>>It is the _direct_ result of a horrible decision made by a TD >>>without thinking it through. >> >>Again this is your and some people opinion, not everybody's opinion. > >It is clearly the _majority_ opinion however. Just count "for's" and >"agsinst's" in the posts here, by poster. Bob, let's face it: A company like ChessBase who had this fantastic success with FRITZ against Kasparov, a World Top Event [cough], can well refuse to protest against such decisions by the TD if then their own prog Shredder wins the event! But from a sports view I wouldn't like such decisions. But nobody was "killed" or even 'handicapped' by the false decision of the TD. More: for the rest of the participents the message was clear: if you are a member of the ChessBase family then you can be happy... Commercially it was a good decision by the TD. However if we count in the science fraction of computerchess the whole decision was a mess. But we must ask ourselves if science isn't a more or less negligeable quantity!! And in this sense I think the ICGA officials only followed a modern and general trend. The economy dictates the events today. Perhaps we must therefore accept that the 10 day event is a good thing although a 5-round tournament would already be enough to get the Wch winner. Bob, this might be the academic truth, but the interests of the economy can't be totally ignored either. > >> >>> This is why we have the rule that says the >>>operator can _not_ influence the game. >> >>Darse statements said a different story...again I think he know more tham me and >>you. >> > >Darse statements were completely irrelevant. ICGA doesn't use FIDE rules. >It uses the rules all the _participants_ agreed to use when they signed up >in the first place. So his opinion is totally irrelevant. > >The operator for Jonny refused to claim a draw when told to do so by >his program. His stated reason was that he thought Shredder had played >better and should win, not draw due to some sort of bug. > >That is _not_ allowable. As I said, Bob, scientifically yes, but economically perhaps not exactly true. ;-O > >The operators don't get to decide "who played better and therefore who should >win." See above. [cough] > > > >>> This is why it is imperative that >>>the TD enforce that rule. This is exactly what happens when he abdicates >>>his responsibilities and tries to do what he thinks avoids making him look >>>the worst in front of the participants. >>> >>>This is your legacy for a year. Not that it was your fault. But the title >>>_was_ tainted. The TD decision was horrible. The title will _forever_ have >>>an "*" beside it. >> >>We only accepted the TD decision. We cannot be blame for it. > >I don't believe I have blamed you for it. I put the blame directly on >Jaap where it belongs. > > > >>> >>>That's sad... >>> >>>And it could have been avoided. >>> >>When the TD gives his last word and the contenders do accept it, for me there is >>no matter to discuss anymore, expecially for people which are not directly >>involved. > >You are sitting in a parked car. I ram into the back of you with my car. I >claim you backed into me. My witness, riding with me, backs me up. Do you >accept that or do you go the police and let the forensic people look it over >and draw a different conclusion? > >The TD is _not_ the ultimate authority. The rules are. He didn't follow the >rules and looked utterly incompetent in doing so. I think it perfectly >reasonable to protest the result in the hopes that someone at ICGA will wake >up, realize it was a bad decision, and fix it. Otherwise this will always be >referred to as the "asterisk" event. Ahem - BTW Asterix & Obelix had authors from Belgium, Bob; you must not confuse Holland with Belgium. These are two seperated, totally different monarchies in Europe. :) I hope that I could finally solve this hard puzzle that inspired so many good authors and their messages. Rolf > >> >>>>> >>>>>I bought Deep Fritz 8, and I will buy Shredder 8. Both are worthy.
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.