Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:05:14 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 13:54:30, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>On April 19, 2001 at 13:01:53, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:55:47, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>>
>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:50:12, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:46:45, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:43:05, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On April 19, 2001 at 12:37:12, Dan Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It would do to have a settings file or somesuch. And Switch it to the optimum at
>>>>>>>once close to the match date. Or A gradual normalisation till the match takes
>>>>>>>place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards Dan Andersson
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course. And can it be forbidden in the contract?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course not!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh dear. Even the idealists accept it to be "sneaky and underhand" :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>Can't you stay idealist just a little longer?
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't have to be like "them", you know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you feel like you need to behave in a ideal way when you are faced with a
>>>>dishonest condition?
>>>>
>>>>I don't.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nail, head, hit.
>>>
>>>Nor did I. Nor did any young programmer who saw what was going on.
>>>
>>>But, if you then "behave in a (less than) ideal way" you join the corrupt
>>>establishment. And the younger ones see you, and they copy that too, and so it
>>>continues.
>>
>>
>>
>>Amateur programmers did not have to wait for me to find ways to kill the big
>>ones with cooked lines in the official tournaments.
>>
>>Not that I have anything against amateur programmers. I was one of them not so
>>long ago...
>>
>>That's life. That's the way it is.
>>
>>If you want to succed, sneaky tricks will never do it for you. But if you don't
>>know the sneaky tricks, you might well never succeed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hence the mess you see now. All the 'players' were idealists once. Now they are
>>>merely corrupt. Don't join them.
>>
>>
>>
>>I think that some people need to learn that chess computers and chess computers
>>programmers are not little puppets.
>>
>>Well... At least some of them are not. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
>I didn't explain myself properly.
>
>Ok, try again.
>
>"Do you feel like you need to behave in a ideal way when you are faced with a
>dishonest condition? I don't."
>
>The statement is a universal one. Almost everybody thinks it. And acts on it.
>
>But it has a snowball effect.
>
>If one thinks the consensus behaviour is 'dishonest', then it's ok to be a
>little 'dishonest'. More than ok, one has no choice.
>
>Then the consensus behaviour becomes more dishonest, and so on. Whether this is
>in actual chess game play, off the board play, newsgroup behaviour, commercial
>behaviour, whatever.
>
>Why I said nail, hit, head, was because I believe this is what happened in
>computer chess. Maybe the snowball now reached the bottom of the hill.
The purpose of the thread I have started is not to promote unethical behaviour.
The purpose is to show that the condition "Kramnik must have the program 3
months before the event" is not a show stopper.
It is a stupid condition that can at best only backfire against the organizers
and Kramnik, and thus should be removed as soon as possible.
I think it is now clear that:
1) it is interpreted as an attempt to cheat
2) it will FAIL and not help Kramnik at all
It is a DOUBLY STUPID requirement.
If it is not removed, then who cares? It is not a valid reason for a chess
programmer to withdraw.
Christophe
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.