Author: blass uri
Date: 00:33:48 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 23:17:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 16, 2000 at 22:35:51, Chris Carson wrote: > >>Peter, >> >>I am leaning towards not counting the forfeit (check spelling). I >>think there might be a rule on that. I am checking, but please take >>a look also. >> >>The Bosboom game is more difficult. It would count for a human >>player and give an accurate measure of strength. This game looses >>significance as more games are played. I am reconsidering, however, >>Bosboom chose to play and chose to quit. That is a measure of >>strength. I would like more opinions on this, Bosboom has a lot >>of short games in this tournament, I am sure the human opponents will >>get all the points they are entitled to. I have had opponents (rated >>higher than myself) that quit after a few moves because they were upset >>playing a lower rated person. I got the points. I have had opponents >>that drug the game out to checkmate even when the game was over long >>before that. >> >>Please let me know your rational for not including the game. Also, >>should losses not fair to the programs also be excluded since they >>also distort the ratings. It seems to me to equal out in the wash. >>Just my two cents. >> >>I try not to set policy, I think the tournament directors do that, >>also, you can always recalc without the game(s) that you feel are >>not fair. I want to be consistant and fair, what do the rules say? >>Do the rules apply only when we think they should and only to the >>opponents we choose? >> >>I am still thinking on this. :) >> >>Here is the TPR without the Bosboom game, still very impressive: >> >> FIDE >> Opp >>Program HW TPR Avg + = - Tot >>Fritz SSS 4x500 PIII 2612 2554 2 4 1 7 - Dutch Championship only >>Pritz 6/SSS 4x500 PIII 2663 2563 3 4 1 8 >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson > > >In this case, it is pretty clear. Bosboom refused to play. He played a few >moves to meet the letter of the rule that said "if you don't play the machine, >you lose the chance to win the bigger prize." IMHO he simply "refused to show >up" but it was a "practical refusal to play" and not a "technical refusal to >play"... > >I'm much more interested in seeing how the program _really_ does, without all >the silliness of the humans factored in. Although now it is impossible to do. >I would count the last Fritz draw as a win, IMHO. It couldn't lose with the >opponent having so little time. It also could not win if the GM decide to repeat the position and I expect the GM to know enough about computers to know that they are happy to repeat in a drawn position so he could get an easy draw if he wanted to do it. I think that practically it could not win so there is no justification to count it as a win. Fritz could win in the case that the GM was claiming a draw and even in this case it is not clear but dependent on the arbiter. I do not think that Fritz could win if the GM decide to try to do a draw on the board by repetition and I think the GM knows enough about computer to understand that programs are usually happy to do a draw with a pawn down. Maybe Fritz could win the first game and not this game but we will never know because the operator offered the opponent a draw when the opponent was in time trouble. Uri
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.