Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:39:31 12/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1999 at 21:00:34, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>On December 08, 1999 at 19:55:36, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Okay. We all are different. This makes life interesting.
>
>>
>>> 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
>
>Let me tell you a story tht illustrates my attitude toward informal games. One
>time at a chess club, I noticed a friend of mine was getting a little upset from
>across the room, so I walked over to investigate. He was involved in a skittles
>game (no clock) and his opponent, whose position was quite hopeless, refused to
>resign. I asked him why he didn't resign himself. He reacted with surprise and
>pointed out the obvious, "but I'm winning!" I replied, "So? Everyone knows this,
>it's boring, he won't resign, so you resign and move on to the next game, which
>is bound to be more interesting. It's only a skittles game, so why get upset?"
>He vacillated. He was fighting a war in his head between his ego and logic.
>Nothing was at stake, so what's the big deal? In skittles, you play until it is
>no longer interesting, then you stop and start a new game. In a game with
>something at stake you don't have this choice unless you are willing to concede
>the money. "Fortunately", for my friend, his opponent decided to resign with
>that remark that I was right, the next game was bound to be more interesting
>than the current one. Perhaps the real reason was he got embarassed. That's
>anybodies guess.
>
>In a level position, I would concede the draw to Kasparov. To me it is no big
>deal. I want to play good chess and I don't care about positions where the
>outcome is decided by time alone. But that's just me. If the position is really
>interesting, you can discuss it after stopping the clock with GK. I don't make
>it into a big deal. This is part of the reason why I think the feature I propose
>is reasonable. It can be turned off if you don't like it. Why not give the user
>the choice?
Fair enough. Before commenting I will say that though I absolutely do not deny
the validity of your point of view, I can't subscribe to it.
In my club, there is a master who teaches there twice a week, and once, a player
complained about a similar episode. The response was one I agree with, and that
is you can never begrudge your opponent for playing on. They are absolutely
within their rights, so respect it. I have been on both ends of this so I do
appreciate the situation. Last year, I had an opponent play on in an endgame
where he was a full rook down for a pawn, and not the slightest hope of
counterplay so as to sustain any illusions he might have had. The game lasted 45
minutes beyond this (consuming about 3 minutes of my thinking time) until I
mated him. I still analyzed the game with him afterwards, though I did add with
a touch of irony (I'm not perfect :-) ) how he could have prolonged the king vs.
king and rook ending by a further 4 moves.
As for quitting a skittles game the minute it is no longer interesting, well,
again we see things differently. If I am won, then my duty as I see it, is to
shorten my opponent's agony by winning in as economical a way as possible, not
to walk off because I have neither the patience nor the sportsmanship to deliver
the coup de grace. What would this prove? That I respect the game even less than
my opponent?
If GK had been able to consume all of his time and been incapable of being in a
superior position and worst, was lost on time, I'd say he would just have to
assume responsibility for his play, and not hope for a draw in bad grace
assuming he could bully me into it because of his status.
Finally, getting back to the point of the program. I'll admit I still don't
understand the need for such a function. Still, as this began as a comment on
games in ICC, even if such a function were created, I would never expect to see
it in use there. Why should a player who is incapable of managing either his
time or his pride benefit from a program's rating?
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.