Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:00:49 11/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 15:04:13, Chris Duggan wrote: > >As I see it, and i stand to be corrected, Amir implied that Bob had >intentionally programmed unsporting behaviour into Crafty, in the attempt to >gain ICC rating points. >This annoyed Bob. I don't believe there are many people that it wouldnt incense >if the slur was addressed to them personally. > Not so. Here's a reminder of what happened (and what didn't): Someone marvelled at Crafty's new ICC rating record. Another downplayed it by pointing out it had a long list of 'noplays'. Bob produced his noplay list. It included ban. Describing his noplayed opponents as abusers and the scum of the earth, justly and necessarily noplayed by crafty, he also briefly touched on the subject of ban, explaining that ban was a disconnector. He insinuated there, and said plainly in other posts, that disconnectors are cheats, and their motive needs no explanation. I found this already irritating, and made these comments: That crafty's refusal to allow adjournment (an ICC procedure automatically refused by crafty) is rude. In addition, having long experience of playing with crafty on ICC, I made the point that crafty is quite an abuser in itself, and gave 4 examples of misbehavior. I need to digress about the meaning of "abuser". It's someone who does not play according to agreed rules of etiquette and sportsmanship. It does not necessarily imply deliberate intent to cheat. I think the meaning was clear to myself and Bob, but may not be clear to all readers of ICC. I had an earlier incident with Bob in which he noplayed (actually censored) me after I disconnected in a won position. I quoted an ICC document that detailed such behavior as a case of abuse. In this case crafty committed abuse, but without any intentional dishonesty taking place or implied. (Though I'm sure Bob would have liked to call this ICC help file a 'troll'). To continue, one of the four points of abuse I mentioned was this: > >- On one occasion, when the opponent had insufficient material (bishop vs. pawn, >I think), not only did it refuse to draw, but with several minutes on its clock, >it did not make a move and let time run out (ICC declared this a draw of >course). The opponent cannot just walk away because crafty has a pawn. I think >this is the worst form of abuse I've seen on ICC. To my not too great surprise, Bob denied everything, including the above: >crafty doesn't do that. If you want to make things up, feel free. But it does >not _ever_ sit and let the clock run out. It just doesn't. Unless the program >had actually 'hung' due to a bug, which is possible. But as far as abuse, that >is nonsense. Because it doesn't do that. Since what I described happened just I described it, I answered simply: > I had trouble myself believing that it's doing this, but it did. This got the following reply from Bob: >If it hung, I'd believe it. Because if crafty 'dies' xboard won't restart >it, it just lets the game sit until the clock runs down. The only abuse I >see here is that this has happened on many occasions and most GM players >will see it and message me. Other non-titled players (and a few titled ones >I admit) will promptly match it 20-30 times and let it flag every game to >run their rating up. Now this is becoming truly annoying. The man is perfectly able to understand what I'm describing, but is making it into something else. And as usual for Bob when the heat is on, he changes the subject. This was my reply. >Now you make it sound like you are a victim here. The point is that I've NEVER >seen crafty lose on time. Then it let's the clock run out in exactly the >position where it won't lose anything over it. > >Coincidence ? Sure, if you say so. Alright. What am I saying here ? Bob is going to a far-fetched direction of crafty crashing for a long period, and losing on time to whoever challenges it because the engine is dead. I described a very special situation where this happened (insufficient material) and with a special outcome (draw regardless of clock). I'm pretty sure that this isn't a coincidence, though Bob completely ignored the special scenario. In addition, crafty went on playing after this, so it didn't crash (Bob is perfectly capable of finding this game and accounting for this behavior. He doesn't seem to be remotely interested in doing so). What else am I saying ? Cheating for rating points ? No, there are no points to be gained here. It's true that there are no points to be lost here, but none to be gained either. The behavior is extremely unpleasant, of course, and IS abuse. In a game with only one possible outcome, you are refused a draw, and wait several minutes for the outcome to be pronounced while crafty's clock runs out. Why did it happen ? Will it happen every time in such a position ? I have no idea, but It's a good guess that what happened was connected to the foregone-draw situation. No coincidence there. What am I saying about crafty (and Bob) ? I said it in another post: >Your program displays some >over-aggressive behavior that can be called unpleasant to unsportsmanlike >according to taste. It would not be forgiven to a serious human player, and the >excuse that "it's just a dumb automatic program" is not good enough, since this >behavior is not very hard to change. That's it. The truth is that after many games with crafty, I've NEVER seen it behave in any way that may harm itself (such as say crashing and losing on time. I've seen it happen to other programs, but never to crafty). It's a very robust program in this sense. This has two reasons, first, because crafty has a long history on ICC and by now Bob has discovered all the loopholes and abuses possible AGAINST him. Second, because Bob takes crafty seriously and will spare no effort that his program won't be victimized. Nothing wrong with that, it's even praiseworthy. Against this background, crafty's abusive behavior stands out. Bob doesn't care. He will not put any effort in his program to improve its behavior. Several of you posted suggestions on how to it can behave more reasonably, some of them rather easy. They were all brushed aside by Bob as too much trouble/risky/not worth it/etc. etc./ Spare your suggestions to someone that is genuinely interested in them. To resume the story, this was Bob's reaction: >To make this simple for you to understand, if you think that I have _ever_ >programmed crafty to just sit and wait, you are full of snot. To even imply >such a thing is rediculous... and says a lot about the way you think about >things... because _I_ would not think of doing such a thing. Otherwise why >would I give my password to GM/IM players? So that they can abort when they >mouse slip. So that they can force it to offer a draw in obvious situations >where it won't automatically. Forget the first part. Look at the second: Bob is saying, paraphrased "How can you say I'm rude to YOU when I'm polite to my FRIENDS." Well, duh. This story has a ridiculous and disturbing sequel, since a few hours later came this fabricated quote: (Bob to Christophe): >Please give me a break. He said "Crafty deliberately let its time run out >without moving in a lost position, rather than resigning." I responded that >I have _never_ programmed such a behavior and in fact, that I was the first >program on ICC to automatically offer and accept draws, just to keep titled >players 'happy'. He responded with "I saw this happen. concidence? If >you say so..." Note the supposed quote from me, which was never said by me. In fact he is now confused about the scenario I complained about. He remembers and says that I'm a terrible liar, though he's a bit unclear about what. Duh again. I'm pretty sure that he says here what in his mind he understood, but it's a pretty dirty tactic to insist it's an exact quote, especially when you are using this to justify more insults (not quoted here, I'll spare you that). At this occasion I complained to the moderators, since I thought this is definitely OUT. To my surprise, the moderators found that this is a bad quote indeed, but argued that it was true IN SPIRIT, or alternatively, that it was a well-intentioned mistake on Bob's part. They didn't find any offense. One of the moderators suggested that I take what Bob says with a grain of salt. Duh. Amir
This page took 0.01 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.