Author: Albert Silver
Date: 16:55:36 12/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1999 at 13:51:15, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>On December 08, 1999 at 12:43:29, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On December 08, 1999 at 12:00:56, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>
>>>On December 08, 1999 at 09:29:53, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 07, 1999 at 20:41:22, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is already done. It is called "playing with increment". If a human
>>>>>>>>chooses a zero increment game, then he has to play to win or draw within
>>>>>>>>that time limit. That is _his_/_her_ choice, and has nothing to do with the
>>>>>>>>computer. I see no reason for the computer to play within that clock time
>>>>>>>>limit but let the human off if he gets low on time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Read my response to this that I wrote to Kappler's post in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If the human insists on playing zero-inc games, then as the saying goes "he who
>>>>>>>>lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The "drawback" to all this is that computers employing the above 2 ideas will
>>>>>>>>>wind up with lower ratings, but I think those ratings will then reflect their
>>>>>>>>>strength due to chessic reasons rather than non-chessic ones. Computer chess
>>>>>>>>>programers egos will take a hit when their programs ICC rating goes down, but
>>>>>>>>>they will gain in the long run by virtue of having produced a more enjoyable
>>>>>>>>>program that is bound to thereby be more popular. In a serious competitive
>>>>>>>>>setting or against another computer, these "features" should be turned off of
>>>>>>>>>course. Perhaps this could be tested on ICC with unrated games to see what the
>>>>>>>>>impact would be on playing strength.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have been playing chess for a _long_ time. I have won and lost games on
>>>>>>>>time. I consider the 'clock' to be a "chessic reason" for losing a game. It
>>>>>>>>is part of the game, included in the rules...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have also played chess for a _long_ time and it has always been considered bad
>>>>>>>etiquette to try to win dead drawn positions on time in skittles. Maybe you play
>>>>>>>in a "tougher" neighborhood than I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You just play in a very protected environment. I have seen this happen at
>>>>>>USCF open events (blitz tournament). At a FIDE event. Even at long time
>>>>>>controls with a mad scramble at the end...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>again, avoid it by playing with increment... not by expecting your opponent to
>>>>>>let you off the hook after you choose a time control you can't live with...
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you know what "environment" I play in? You keep forgetting I am limiting
>>>>>this feature to friendly games. You mention USCF & FIDE events. So what? What
>>>>>about them? I wasn't talking about those. Like I said before, you don't seem to
>>>>>read my posts very carefully.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure how "friendly" an environment a rated game on ICC is. I have never
>>>>seen a friendly zero increment game on ICC unless played against someone I
>>>>already knew, and even then it depended. When I want a friendly game, I'll go
>>>>for unrated with lots of increment. I am not the world's fastest blitz player (a
>>>>huge understatement) but will not even deign to complain, or even be upset, if
>>>>when my clock is down to 2-3 seconds, my opponent starts to play nonsense moves,
>>>>such as giving pieces away though with a check, in order to eat up those last
>>>>few seconds. Sounds terribly unfair, and the first time this happened to me I
>>>>felt cheated. I quickly realized though, that playing in a new environment
>>>>brought about new conditions, and learning to contend with them was a part of
>>>>it. Complaining about them would do little good. Caveat emptor.
>>>>Similarly, I always go to tournaments with wax earplugs whether or not it is a
>>>>small round-robin, or a big open. Sure, the arbiter should absolutely ensure
>>>>silence as a part of the playing conditions, and as a friend pointed out, it
>>>>shouldn't be necessary to take such precautions. Still, an argument, a noisy
>>>>spectator, an animated discussion by the players on the game that they just
>>>>finished playing before leaving the playing area: all are possibilities that
>>>>happen all the time. I'd rather not lose my concentration, and possibly the game
>>>>due to these, and then complain endlessly about it after. In my opinion, such an
>>>>attitude is just creating excuses to lose. In the end, the result remains the
>>>>same.
>>>>
>>>> Albert Silver
>>>
>>>The "friendliness level" is highly variable. Depends on whether the players
>>>think ICC ratings are significant or not. Also, how high rated one or both of
>>>the players are. If you offend a high rated player, he will stop playing you and
>>>the supply of strong players is limited. If you offend a low rated player, there
>>>is always plenty of fish in the sea, so a player may feel little incentive to be
>>>"friendly". It is different depending on your level.
>>>
>>>Something you see frequently between high rated players: one gets very short on
>>>time and a draw is quickly agreed when the position is drawish even though the
>>>other player is could easily win the game on time. Exception is made when one of
>>>them "threw away" his advantage in position in favor of simply winning on time.
>>>Then the draw offer is refused.
>>>
>>>Besides, chess is a form of entertainment for most players. A hobby. Why not
>>>make chess programs as enjoyable to play as possible? Also, this is a feature
>>>that can be turned off. It accomodates the opinion of both sides, whether they
>>>think chess should be friendly or not. Don't you think the user of the program
>>>should decide? I don't understand why people are reacting to this idea like I'm
>>>trying to force them to use it. People are funny.
>>
>>I think they are simply responding to your idea with their opinion, much as I
>>am. Regarding your idea to cut the players slack in zero increment games, I am
>>dead set against this. Why should the computer have to protect someone from his
>>folly? Forgive them, they're just human so give them a break? Suppose I bought a
>>very expensive car as opposed to cheaper one that ends up hurting my
>>well-balanced budget, and subsequently find myself in dire straits. All this in
>>the name of vanity. A very human flaw. Should I complain to the car dealer he
>>should lower his price in order to forgive me my human fallacies?
>>You might think these are different examples, but I think they are the same. If
>>a player CHOOSES to play with a zero increment, then they have no right to
>>complain about the time control. If they do, I'll repeat it again, they set out
>>creating excuses to lose. You see, had they chosen a 5 second increment, that
>>excuse wouldn't be there to save them face, and they would be forced to admit
>>that the computer had simply beaten them at the board. Now, they can scream it
>>was because of their slow reflexes.... Pure nonsense in my opinion. Just my 2
>>cents mind you.
>>
>> Albert Silver
>
>Before before the internet, when I was quite young, I used to play a lot of 1
>minute blitz for small stakes. One minute blitz is very different face to face.
>Lag and the awkward interface is a big equalizer on the interenet. The
>supplemental rules we used are very nosed by most players standards, but they
>evolved from practical experience.
>
>1) If you make an illegal move and punch your clock, you
> lose (normal rule).
>2) If a piece was knocked over and you punched the clock,
> you lose (not normal, but logically consistent with
> prior rule).
>3) If you knock over the clock after starting your
> opponents clock, you lose (not normal, but logical).
>4) Winning on time in a clearly drawn position is legit
> (remember, this is playing for stakes).
>5) KxK is legal (people hate this, but this is irrational.
>6) When you deliver mate, you must have time remaining or
> you lose (you must stop your clock).
>
>The last 2 rules are abnormal and a lot of people don't like them, but all the
>rules are fair simply because they are applied to both players equally. They are
>all designed to minimize arguments. In addition, if a mechanical clock is used,
>if it is knocked over, you lose regardless of whose time is running. This kills
>the argument that the process of knocking over the clock altered the balance of
>time, which happens. BTW we used the same rules for 5 minute too. These rules
>are not for wimps or cry babies, so if you don't like them fine.
>
>So you can see, I am no stranger to competive chess. I have played since 1971
>and I am now an NM. I know what is normal chess and what is not, what is fair
>and what is not and what is friendly chess and what is not.
>
>When nothing significant is at stake, I play differently. A typical ICC game has
>nothing significant at stake. There is no good reason for not keeping the game
>as friendly as possible. I don't buy the zero increment BS. If you are playing
>Kasparov skittles and he offers a draw to avoid losing on time. Only an idiot
>would refuse it in a level position. It does not even have to be drawish.
If it was drawn or drawish, I'd agree, if the position is not even drawish, I'd
say that was Kasparov's tough luck. Kasparov is a pretty tough competitor and I
doubt he'd complain about losing on time under such circumstances. Furthermore,
if he had the gall to make such an offer to me in an unclear position only
because he was low on time, I'd probably stare him right in the face for such
affrontery. Unless there were extenuating circumstances involved (he had to sign
autographs whilst playing), I'd say THAT was BS. No offence.
> You
>take the draw, because you want to keep playing him and because it isn't any
>secret that you "could" have won on time, so what is the point? It is better to
>move on to the next game and play some _real_ chess than continue the current
>one which has degenerated into something that is not so interesting anyway. You
>still disagree? Too bad.
No stakes involved? Yes, no. There is a reason there are rated games and unrated
games. Rated games involve a score and that hinges on standings and honour. If
you truly feel no difference whatsoever whether playing rated games or not, then
it can't be all that much fun for you, as there is no 'scent of blood' so to
speak. I suspect that isn't the case though, else why make such a fuss about the
computer playing on. Why feel outraged the computer won if there is nothing at
stake and the game's value and interest is nil?
Albert Silver
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.