Author: Amir Ban
Date: 03:19:32 11/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 21:01:36, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On November 02, 1999 at 19:00:49, Amir Ban wrote: > >>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'. > >I don't think that could've been called a 'long' list by any stretch. Most of >them probably had good reason to be on the list. > The poster said or implied so. I was summarizing his message, not giving my opinion. >>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. > >He explained that Ban disconnected in a couple of games, and therefore was >automatically placed on the noplay list by his interface. He also said that if >you asked, he would remove you, as he does almost everyone who asks. > Don't remember this, but I'm not going to ask anyone to play me. You don't need to ask anyone not to smoke in a non-smoking area. I know that as a former smoker. >>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 remember that you gave one example - the example when Crafty apparently hung >in a KPKB ending. > No, there were four. Lookup that post. >>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. > >How is he making it into something else, or changing the subject? He said it >was completely possible that Crafty hung - How is this abuse? > I won't get into this again. If I didn't convince you, so be it. >>>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). > >How is Crafty being hung 'far-fetched'? If you actually knew what's happening, >Bob is correct. When Crafty hangs in Xboard/Winboard, it will continue to be >hung, even when a new game is started. I have also seen cases where Crafty (or >other Winboard engines) make a move, and for whatever reason the move isn't >recognized by Winboard, and so Winboard continues to wait for a move. Since the >engine already thinks it's moved, it just sits and waits. In this case, it will >restart when a new game is started. > I answered that. Also, reread the last paragraph more carefully. >>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. > >Again, if you knew what was really going on here, you'd know that this >insinuation is silly. Watch Crafty play a few thousand games; watch it get into >many KBKP endings. How many times does it hang in this ending? Almost never, >just as it almost never hangs in any other position. > Read my last paragraph again. Your point is irrelevant. It did happen in the case I reported. >>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. > >What is this 'over-aggressive behavior'? Crafty is possibly the only automatic >program that resigns on its own, and can offer and can accept draws on its own. >If this behavior is easy to change, why has _no one_ else done it? > To understand my quote go read my post where it was said. Several automatic programs resign. Crafty never accept draws against ban. Several other programs do. >>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. > >Again, what is this 'abusive behavior'? > Read my post where I discussed this. >>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. > >If you really thought Crafty was programmed to do this, why didn't you either >play it again yourself until you reached a similar ending, to see whether it >hung again, or watch others play it until they reached the same ending. You'd >see that Crafty didn't hang again, against anyone. > I did not say crafty was programmed to do this, and you have not been paying much attention to what I said. Your suggestion of what I should have done is impractical and hardly my job. I would expect the Crafty programmer to be interested in that. >It truly was a silly accusation on your part. > >>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. > >This is what you said: > > >>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. > >So how is it that you never said that? > I'm obviously talking about the first quote. >> 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. > >You don't think you insinuated that Bob is a liar about Crafty hanging in that >position? And you really believe that he programmed it to hang against only Ban >in that one specific position, not knowing if it would ever even be reached? If >so, Bob must have been psychic to see that this would happen. Right in his >plan, no? > You've not read my post very attentively. >Sheesh. > >Jeremiah Amir
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.