Author: James T. Walker
Date: 18:35:30 08/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 1999 at 08:00:11, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On August 18, 1999 at 14:15:59, James T. Walker wrote: > >>Hello Shep, >>I guess I'm not very sensible for wanting the program to play by the rules of >>chess which includes playing by the clock. It's beyond my comprehension why you > >It is completely LEGAL to lose on time. I have seen many humans do that before >so - indeed, you are not very sensible for wanting a chess program not to do >something many many humans do from time to time. >I do understand that this is beyond your comprehension :-)) Hello again, I'm sure you understood that it is beyond my comprehension that someone would write a chess program that ignores the time control and thereby loses on time. It's obviously very easy to make a program make one move in 4:33 since they can play entire games in less time than that. It is an advantage that computers have over humans so to equate the two is wrong. Humans have certain limitations with hand eye coordination. If losing is considered human like then you have reached your goal. That is not the goal of most humans however. >Why do you think CSTal is names TAL and not Chess System ROBOT ?? >Any idea ? Could it be that the program is named by tal because we wanted >to make it human-like ? > > >>would play a rated game in a tournament under time control conditions and not >>think playing according to the clock is important. > >It is important, and although it is important i have seen many humans >overstep time control. don't you ? >it is important. but not forbidden or illegal to do it , or ? (Comment above applies.) > >> That reminds me of a guy I >>used to play golf with. He didn't think the rules of golf were important or >>applied to him. > >as i told you - it is LEGAL to lose on time. it happens very often. >it was made to lose on time. so it makes no sense NOT to lose on time, than >the whole rule would be illogical. if nobody would lose on time, we would >not need clocks anyway. i guess you are a little irritated in logic. maybe >consider again about the topic would help ? > >> I like CST-2 but it has some problems which need attention. > >:-)) good that we have you :-))) > >>This one happens to be my pet peeve. The clock gives both players a fair >>allotment of time which should be followed. If you fail to play the given >>number of moves in the alloted time you lose! Other than that it's not >>important. > >exactly. losing is not important. that is what i told you before. chris and i >are not interested in winning or losing. we want to make the program stronger >in playing not in not playing but following YOUR rules of importance. >we have participated few championships with not losing on time. It was >hiarcs that lost on time against cstal in paderborn 1995 when i remember it >right. so maybe you should write an email to mark uniacke, author of hiarcs. :-) I appreciate your confession here. I was not aware of the Oxford philosiphy of losing is good when I purchased the program. By the way Hiarcs 7.32 has played over 1500 auto232 games on my computer and has not lost one game on time yet. A quality which I appreciate since it's so easy to avoid. I feel losing on time is acceptable when you are losing anyway and spend your last few seconds looking for a way to save the game. Question. Why are you interested in making the program stronger if you are willing to lose on time? Strength is measured in win/loss records. There is no other way I know of. Simple statistics. If you beat me more than I beat you then you are stronger than me. If I beat you more than you beat me but you claim it's only because I expected you to play according to the time controls then your claim is dubious at best. Maybe the clocks should be removed from the GUI to remove all pretense of trying to play within time limits. You could advertise this fact so that customers who wanted this feature would be pleased and rush to buy the program. Maybe I should explain that I spent the last 15 years of my career in Quality Assurance. I've developed a bad habbit of nit picking. It comes from too many of the Deming seminars I think. :-) Well we simply have a different philosophy on the area of computer chess. Perhaps I'm in the minority, it wouldn't be the first time. Regards, > > >>Jim Walker
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.