Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 02:39:36 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 05:16:57, Andrew Williams wrote: >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? Your questions miss my point. So I will explain later. To your question here I would answer, that "behind the machine" means to me that such questions have been decided before and been published. So, a draw against Reindermann should not be possible. I would also agree that -2. would not be enough to resign. > >(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? Of course not. > >(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? Of course not. > >(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? > Here you can see that you are missing the point. Suddenly you come with your program. But your question shows to me at least that it's obvious that we must find new rules the moment a program, a machine is there. In your example I am not sure what I would do. This depended on whether the machine could find solutions to win. If it were a typically difficult position for computers I would try to win otherwise I would be happy to draw. But honestly I wouldn't make a clown out of myself and propose a draw to you. If however you asked me I would agree to a draw. You see the difference. The insult in the Tiviakov case was that F. Morsch does that kind of acts at all. Granting Reindermann a draw. Denying Bosboom a quick draw. "Granting" Tiviakov a draw in a lost position of the machine. This "granting" in a lost position by the _operator_ that is the scandal. I wished I could explain that to you and people like B. Moreland. Then quickly new rules could be found. By all the exhibitional "matches" people in computerchess seem to have been negatively influenced relative to decent behavior. Because there the "presentation" of the creator was as important as the participation of the human chessmaster. >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.