Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 06:08:05 11/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 1999 at 06:19:32, Amir Ban wrote: >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. Ok. >>>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 agree this is how it should be, but not always the way it is. I work in a no smoking restaurant, and you'd be surprised at all the people who try to smoke, right next to "No Smoking" signs. :( >>>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. You're right. I should've done so. >>>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. You didn't convince me because it's silly to think Bob would program it to do this. >>>>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. Answered what? I did not ask anything, except how Crafty being hung is far-fetched. Perhaps you should read my paragraph more carefully, because I gave a simple scenario that has happened many times that perfectly explains the behavior you saw. It's anyone's guess whether this is what really happened or not, though. >>>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. And that provides basis for accusations of programming Crafty to do this? Does your program _never_ hang, crash, <insert favourite bug here>? >>>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. I don't know about "Crafty", but the Crafty I run on FICS/ICC can accept draws, if it has evaluation of 0.00 or whatever. If other automatic programs accept draws, then I stand corrected on this point. >>>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. I did. That's why I'm asking. There was nothing 'abusive' happening. >>>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. If you didn't say Crafty was programmed to do this, then what were you insinuating? My suggestion is impractical, silly even. So is your accusation. >>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. Change "lost" to "drawn", and change "resigning" to "moving" in that quote, and that's pretty much what you said. >>> 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. I read your post perfectly attentively. If you meant something different than your words implied, I can accept that. However, your words: >>>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. DO imply that Bob programmed Crafty to do this. What other explanation can be taken from your words?
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.