Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 02:52:22 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 05:39:36, Hans Gerber wrote: >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 don't understand how this differs from your answer to my third question. If a person does it it's *not* discourteous. If the operator of a computer does it, it *is* discourteous? Are you suggesting that the machine should be programmed to anticipate this sort of situation and offer the draw itself? If not, what am I missing? Andrew >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. >
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.