Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 02:16:57 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 04:38:10, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 16, 2000 at 02:51:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >(snip) > >> >>I have no idea why chess players expect their opponent to resign when in a lost >>position, if in order to achieve this won position they have left themselves so >>little time that they can't actually win the game without the opponent's >>cooperation. It seems an awful lot to ask of one's opponent. People should >>understand that this kind of thing happens when you sit down to play with a >>sudden-death time control, and plan accordingly. If you don't plan well enough, >>you deserve a less desirable outcome. >> >>bruce > > >You "have no idea...". Let me help you. Your reasoning is completely off the >mark. > >1. Tiviakov did _not_ claim victory when he was under time pressure in a won >position. >2. Tiviakov did _not_ claim draw when he was under time pressure in a won >position. >3. It was F. Morsch who dared to propose draw in the time pressure of the human >player and in a completely lost position. >4. F. Morsch behaved impolitely and without respect. Because you don't propose >draw in lost positions (as operator of a machine). > >Your "I have no idea..." is typical for people who work on the machine's side. >You are lacking of the necessary education in chess. Your machines might play >like masters but you are not operating like masters. That is the problem. Your >article demonstrated that you can't have a clue why a certain codex of behavior >in chess does exist at all. > >I tried to explain this already in the discussion about DB team's psychowar >against Kasparov -- the _insult_ there and here in case of F. Morsch lies in the >lack of respect for the performance, for the existence itself of the human >chessplayer. Operators or creators of a machine should dissapear behind their >machine. They should _not_ take part as actors. Simply because they come from a >different sphere. _They_ don't play chess but their machine does. The best >solution would be if the machine would play completely on its own. A whole game. >A whole match. A whole tournament. Operator should be someone who has no >understanding for chess at all. However he should be educated in good manners... > >Baseline. It's an act of unbelievable misbehavior if the operator begins to >gamble for a point in a lost position. It's a scandal if the people behind the >project decide to grant some players a quick draw while they want to squeeze >others. I'm interested in your answers to four questions: (1) Suppose the operator does "disappear behind" the machine. In the game situation, suppose the machine didn't resign (a score of -2.something would be very unusual for a resigning threshold). The game gets played out. What would you have said if Tiviakov had lost on time? (2) Suppose I am playing you. You reach a probably winning position, but have used a lot of time on the clock. I have more time left. Do you expect me to resign? (3) Same as (2), except I think you can't win and are in danger of losing on time (it's a sudden-death time control). I offer you a draw. Am I being discourteous? (4) Now suppose that I am operating my program against you. My program has achieved a probably winning position, but it is very short of time. You have more time. Do you offer a draw or play on expecting my program to lose on time? Andrew
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.