Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 08:09:41 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 06:06:32, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >Hello, > >I believe that Tieviekov's protests after the fact are out of place and Fritz's >win should stand. Tieviekov's complaints seem more like a case of being a poor >loser and making himself look even worse by griping after the game. > >HOWEVER!!! > >Fritz' operator should not have made a draw offer in that position. >Technically, the operator has no right to have any interaction at the board that >is not directed by the program - ie. the operator can't offer a draw unless the >program somehow indicates that it wants to offer one. > >Offering a draw in such circumstances is in extremely poor chess manners. >Making a draw offer in a losing position when your opponent is in time trouble >is not generally considered an honourable thing to do - if you wish to be >honourable in such a position, you aknowledge that you've been beaten by your >opponent and resign. > >To make matters worse - offering a draw in such positions could get Fritz in >some serious trouble in the game. Such a draw offer could be considered an >attempt to distract one's opponent and could result in a penalty (I believe >different federations have different rules, so I won't speculate on what this >would be for this particular incident). > >To put to rest all the chatter about the operator having done a favour by >offering the draw, as a TD, I have witnessed many a time scramble, and I find >that more often than not, a master calibre player can routinely grind out a win >with very little (yes, even as little as 2 minutes) time left on their clock. I >have seen a lot of players thinking they have an easy win via the flag when the >master has only 2 minutes left, and more often than not, the master pulls it >off. > >Any comparisons to other sports are irrelevant when we are talking about chess. >Chess is a gentleman's game. Chess is _NOT_ like other sports/games where >winning is everything. Sure, some players will be ruthless and play for wins by >cheap methods such as winning on time in an obviously lost position, playing out >a dead drawn position in hopes of winning on time/etc - anything to win. These >players can stay within the rules and I suppose are technically entitled to do >so. Such behaviour however is strongly frowned upon in chess. > >When you consider that chess program participation in high level GM play is >scarce enough as it is, you would think that a computer operator would be >walking on eggshells. > >To speak bluntly - I think that if we wish to see more (if any) participation of >computers in high class GM events, operators should be very humble - resign lost >positions, offer draws when appropriate rather than coniving for a win, etc, >etc. > >You might be able to somehow justify a computer program's "right" to press on in >a lost position to win on time, or the "right" to offer a draw, or whatever the >next such issue will be about, but there is one hard, cold fact that trumps all >of this - computer programs are playing by the GMs' rules. If the programs >continue to insult, anger, or in any way upset the GMs' sensibilities, whether >justified or not - computers may find themselves completely bereft of any human >opposition of GM calibre. > >The computer programs MUST play on the terms of the GMs if they wish to continue >playing, whether they are reasonable or not. > >Now - some of you may be surprised by my stance on this issue considering that I >am an author of a chess program myself. > >It is very simple - I am a chess player as well as a TD, and I am quite shocked >at the lack of understanding from this forum about etiquette in chess. It >almost seems to me that a large majority of you has either never been to a real >chess event, never mind a man-machine one, or you are simply holding a bias >towards favouring the machine that is completely clouding your judgement. >Furthermore, as a player and author, I know how finicky, particular, and >downright strange elite chess players can be - knowing this, and also knowing >that one day when I get my program to a semi-finished product that I want to >have it play some human oposition - I know that we MUST play by the GMs' rules, >or we will find ourselves in the truly sad situation of having to play our >programs against each other and never have any human opposition. > >I hate to use a cliche - but I think it is quite fitting here: >He who has the gold makes the rules. >In our case, the GMs hold the gold, and they will make the rules. > > >PLEASE!! Before anyone goes on a crusade for the right and justice of computer >chess, consider the implications of such a stance on the future opportunities >for chess programs to play top calibre human players. > > >Regards, >Adrien. I would disagree with you, because it happens where often in human vs human tournaments. I remember a game which I play with similar time controls, and it was on the 3rd time control, sudden death, I had one hour left in my clock, my opponent had 5 minutes left, he was a pawn up in a bishop vs knight endgame with 3 vs. 2 pawns on the kingside. He offered me a draw, and I accepted because of sportmanship, I could have played on and won on time. Now, I could have refused the draw, and made my opponent play on and hopefully win on time. My opponent could not protest if he lost on time in a won position. So why should it be different when a computer play against a human? The operator made a discret call in behalf of the computer, and I believe it shows that the operator has a lot of sportsmanship. Laurence
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.