Author: blass uri
Date: 08:59:56 06/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 2000 at 10:12:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 11, 2000 at 01:39:01, blass uri wrote: > >>On June 11, 2000 at 01:35:16, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On June 10, 2000 at 21:07:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 10, 2000 at 18:43:57, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 10, 2000 at 08:28:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You know very well why you were censored. You made the direct claim, here in >>>>>>CCC, that I specifically wrote crafty so that if it was getting mated, it would >>>>>>sit and run out of time rather than letting the opponent mate me. >>>>> >>>>>The cases discussed was about losing on time in a drawn position. >>>>>I remember that Amir admitted that he did a bad job in explaining himself. >>>>> >>>>>He meant to criticize crafty's behaviour against computers and meant to >>>>>criticize the fact that you did not look for the game to see the reason for the >>>>>fact that crafty lost on time in the position that it has nothing to lose from >>>>>it but he did not mean to say the direct claim that you and some other people >>>>>understood. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>all he had to do was post a one line explanation... >>>> >>>>I don't remember losing on time in a drawn position. I don't see how that would >>>>be considered "abusive". It would be considered "stupid". not moving when >>>>getting mated could be considered abusive, but losing a drawn game by not moving >>>>seems to be a long way from that... >>> >>>The point is that the game was drawn when crafty lost on time because Junior had >>>only a bishop. >>> >>>I do not remember that Amir complained that Crafty lost on time instead of >>>getting mated. >>> >>>The fact is that crafty lost on time instead of draing in another way and it was >>>because of a bug. >>> >>>Uri >> >>The bug was corrected and I believe that the fact that Amir reacted in the way >>he reacted is also because of the fact that he did not like the fact that the >>discussion was not about the real problem. >> >>Uri > > >The only way I could see this being a draw issue would be if crafty had (say) >a KBP vs a KB, that was a dead draw. In that case, if the clock flag falls, >crafty couldn't lose. This was exactly the case except the fact that it was KNP vs KB if I remember correctly. I rmemeber from the discussion that it was a tablebase bug. > >As far as the rest, didn't _you_ tell _him_ about a few thing you considered >"bugs" and he didn't seem interested in fixing them at all? You are right but the cases that I found are cases when Junior could lose rating from it when the case that Amir asked about was a case when crafty did not lose something from it and Amir lost time because of it because he had to wait for crafty to lose on time in order to do a draw. The point of Amir is that if someone complain about bad behaviour of crafty(and I do not include cases when crafty lost games instead of drawing or draw games instead of winning because of the bad behaviour) then you should check to see the reason for it. He did a bad job in explaining it and after it both sides did not try to be polite in the discussion. 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.