Author: Adrien Regimbald
Date: 12:07:35 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hello, >Playing the best move in each position is one definition of "trying to win." The program in each position tries to play the move with a higher "score" .. it really has no true conception of what "winning" the game is :P >I am certain the draw would not happen. There is no twist of the rule I can >see, other than paying off the arbiter, that would cause an arbiter to rule >that the game is a draw. Arbiters don't have a lot of flexibility here, as the >rules are pretty clear. Which is how it should be... You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but I think somebody such as yourself should know that if you are going to make such an absolutist statement, the only way to back it up is by verifying this with every single arbiter in the world. My stance could be proven by taking a poll of a reasonable sample of arbiters and seeing which way the majority thinks about it. Until either of these happens, arguing over the issue is just blowing steam. Let me give a brief forcast of what this argument will look like if we continue: R: I think the arbiter would rule a draw. H: I think the arbiter would never rule a draw. R: I think the arbiter would rule a draw. H: I think the arbiter would never rule a draw. Ad infinium. There, now that we've got that out of the way, can we please drop it? :P >He was about to lose on time. How do you _know_ that he wouldn't accept the >draw offer without offering it? How do you _know_ that he isn't worried about >the clock? How do you _know_ that he wasn't simply being polite by not offering >a draw himself, because he could see the clock and knew he was about to lose? > >In light of all those points, how can it be wrong to "ease the pressure" and >offer _him_ a draw, which he is free to accept or decline, without any loss of >concentration or anything... The only person that knows whether he wanted a draw or not is Tiviakov. While I admit that I don't know for sure whether he was trying to win - I think that it is most likely that he was. - if he wasn't trying to win, I suspect that he would have offered a draw with say 5 minutes to go rather than playing it out - if he wasn't trying to win, he would have likely started trying to make a solid drawing position rather than playing for the win a long time before the draw offer was made - I don't think he was simply being polite by not offering a draw as we saw he offered a draw several moves later after he blundered .. if he was being polite and not offering a draw in a situation he thought he could lose, why did he go ahead and offer one in an even worse situation only a few moves later? >Then shouldn't they play _without_ a clock, if the clock isn't going to count >when the human gets into time trouble (but of course it would count if the >computer got into time trouble). The clock is part of the game, and is included >in the rules of chess. This means that in addition to trying to manage your >own space, material, positional advantages, you must _also_ manage your time >so that you can take advantage of any 'edge' you manage to create in the game. > >Saying that Fritz should have resigned at -2 is ridiculous. Humans don't do >that very often, although I have seen many GM players resign vs computers on ICC >when they hang a pawn. But I have seen GMs play on a piece down, hoping to >draw, since endings like KRB vs KR are dead draws and the extra piece is of no >use. I'm not saying play without a clock - not at all. I'm simply saying: in a situation where the computer's only method of winning is to play for the flag or win on a blunder by the GM in time pressure, perhaps it would be a better end result for computer chess if the operator resigned the position rather than carrying on for the win. I don't understand the way you are switching your opinion .. on one hand I suggest resigning such positions as a way of smoothing things over and you lambast me for it saying maybe we should throw away the clock. Later in your post, you say it is in fact a good idea and that you do it yourself with Crafty! You can't make a good argument of criticizing me over an idea when it is me who suggests it and then later go on to say how you think it is such a great idea.. :P >If humans don't want computers in the events, they ought not be in the >events. But the reason should be "because they are computers" and not "because >the operator insulted me, or the operator didn't resign when he should have"... The reason could be as petty as "I didn't like the glare off of the bald spot on the operator's head" (no, I don't know if any operators are bald or not..), and we really can't say anything about it. I actually think that the operator insulting a GM is quite a sufficient reason for that GM to not wish to play against a computer - you (or any other player for that matter) may not take it as an insult, but the issue at hand is whether the GM takes it as an insult. I think we all know GMs can act rather bizarrely at times, and what they may or may not construe as an insult is probably something we will never completely understand - thus the need for the operators to walk on eggshells when they do get an opportunity to play. >That is the point. I have been in that _exact_ position many times. I have .. and yet you criticize me for suggesting it above, and not here.. :P >made crafty offer draws or resign even though it could have won on time. And >in every case the opponent said "thanks". Not "hey, this draw should be a win >for me because your draw offer interrupted my thinking" or some such nonsense. > >In 99% of the cases, what Frans did would be applauded as good sportsmanship. >This one sour-grapes GM turned good sportsmanship into something else. Or at >least he _tried_ to. I think _he_ ought to be banned from future computer >events, period. :) I happen to know a number of stronger players who would take the draw offer by the operator as an insult and would likely be distracted by it. You might say that these people should seek help or whatever (I am not going to disagree .. strong chess players tend to be extremely off-center) but these are the group of people with which you wish to play games, and as such, you need to cater to them, no matter how unreasonable they seem. Regards, Adrien.
This page took 0.01 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.