Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 11:42:55 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. This is not correct unless they were operating under rules that aren't normally in effect during computer vs human games. At AEGON and in other situations that I've been involved in, if the program offers a draw or resigns you have to pass that through, but in addition you can offer a draw or resign whenever you want. These are the rules that computer people will naturally adopt under these circumstances. If there are other rules, they can easily be followed, but if there are no explicitly stated rules, these are the rules that the computer people will expect. >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. Two GM's tell me that you can play on. One went into some detail, and said he thought you should resign if you were down a queen or something, but in the case where you are down a pawn or two you can play on. >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. Yes, perhaps he shouldn't have offered a draw, or let his opponent offer it. But Frans is a good guy and wasn't trying to distract his opponent, I'm pretty sure. >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. I think that it's important to be polite when playing humans, since they don't much like computers, in general. But you should resign when you are lost and aren't able to set problems before your opponent. I've heard of humans asking operators why they resigned so early, and I don't think that's a good idea, either. The program shouldn't resign earlier than a human would resign, and there are positions where it could probably very justifiably resign a little later. bruce >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.
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.