Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 09:22:05 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 11:05:45, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. I understand the point you are making. The very same thing happened in the 2 games Rebel8 played against GM Ralf Akesson. Rebel8 won the first game and lost the second game on time due to an operator error in a promising position. Make an exception? No way IMO. The next thing a GM loses on time in a won position because his wife gave birth and he went home. The list of exceptions soon becomes endless. We need a clear rule. Ed >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.