Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 08:05:45 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 10:58:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 19, 2000 at 10:27:04, blass uri wrote: > >>On May 19, 2000 at 09:42:07, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2000 at 09:37:19, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>I am planning to publish an updated list list here with >>>>all rated human vs computer results for 40/2 events. >>>> >>>>Please let me know your thoughts on the following: >>>> >>>>1. Exclude Performance Rating when 3 or fewer games >>>> have been played by a program/hardware. >>> >>>I don't see why. >>> >>>>2. Exclude forfiets and protest resignations (Dutch Championship), >>>> and games where computers lost due to hardware, IP failures, >>>> or operator error. >>> >>>I would definitely exclude forfeits and IP failures, but not the rest. In my >>>opinion, this list is interesting if it reflects the real performance of >>>programs in actual games. Hardware failures and operator's errors are part of >>>how a program plays. Forfeits and IP failures are not. >>> >>>Enrique >> >>Do you really think that losing on time is part of how shredder4 plays? >> >>I do not agree. >>I think that operator's error are not part of how a program plays and it is not >>fair to include the game that shredder lost on time in a winning position when >>the reason was not a bug in the program. >> >>Uri > > >Depends on your definition of "How Shredder plays". If you mean how it plays >in human events, then the answer is "yes". Because the operator _will_ make a >mistake here and there. Resigning when there is a deep saving move that the >program might have played without understanding it. Losing time on the clock >by going to the bathroom. Etc. The human operator _is_ part of the "system" >until we start using robots controlled by the computer. > >I have made mistakes (as an operator) that ending up costing Cray Blitz a game >here and there. In the WMCCC event in Jakarta, the operator misunderstood how >to set the time control and set it for 40 moves in 2 days, not 40 moves in 2 >hours. We lost the first game that way. If you have a human in the loop, then >he has to be factored in. As does hardware failures which _do_ happen in games. > >In fact, bleeding edge hardware is dangerous to use for this reason. This was my first reaction too, but I remember reading here that the operator of Shredder in the last round of the Israeli league lost on time almost on purpose, making telephone calls, not caring about the program, etc. So it is an exceptional case that in my opinion makes the game irrelevant for rating purposes. Enrique
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.