Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:21:22 08/20/99
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. **************** What a strange twist of words. Of course it's not ILLEGAL to lose! When you are playing under time controls such as 40/2 you MUST make 40 moves within 2 hours. To not do this IS ILLEGAL and the penalty is forfeiture of the game. Apparently this is beyond your comprehension. :-) **************** >I do understand that this is beyond your comprehension :-)) >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 ? > > >> 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. :-) > > > >>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.