Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 09:57:05 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 12:41:57, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On May 19, 2000 at 12:22:05, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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. > >Sure, but if the purpose of this rating list is to give us an idea of the >strength of programs, I would discard games that we know are meaningless, like >the 2 forfeits of Fritz in Holland and this Shredder game. The key word, to me, >is "meaning", and this game has none. The list may be more complicated, but also >more accurate. What about the GM's wife example? The computer won or lost? Or drop the game? You never get a perfect system. Why not stick to the FIDE rule? If you lose on time you have lost whatever happened. 2 hurrays, not 3 as 3 is too much. Ed >Enrique > >>Ed >> >> >>>Enrique
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.