Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:54:26 07/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2001 at 05:19:10, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On July 20, 2001 at 04:35:53, José Carlos wrote: > >>On July 19, 2001 at 17:33:54, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2001 at 16:49:11, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>Excerpt from the Chessbase page of the latest report from Dortmund : >>>> >>>>http://www.chessbase.com/events/dortm01/dortm03.htm >>>> >>>><snip> >>>>"In the Man vs Machine match Dr Robert Hübner, playing with the white pieces, >>>>offered his opponent Deep Fritz a draw after 21 moves. The operator accepted, >>>>even though Fritz thought it was slightly ahead in the game. The score between >>>>the two is now 2:2. The last two games will be played on Saturday and Sunday." >>>><snip> >>>> >>>> >>>>Probably when the operator pressed the button "Offer Draw" Fritz answered "I >>>>think that the game is still quite interesting , let's play on", but the human >>>>operator didn't want to disappoint Dr. Hubner. >>>> >>>>Regards. >>> >>>I think that operators of chess programs should not have the right to decide if >>>to agree to a draw. >>>It is something that only the machines should have the right to decide about. >> >> It's not so easy. There're several cases that should be handled by the >>operator. For example: a dead draw ending where the program thinks he's slightly >>better because of a bishop vs knight. After 20 moves Bf1,Be2,Bd3,Bc2... the draw >>should be accepted by the operator. >> Besides, since most human players don't like to play computers, you have to be >>careful not to make angry the few that play with them. I don't mean accepting >>the draw everytime, of course, but sometimes it's clear for the human, although >>the program has no clue. >> Finally, if the operator us the programmer, I think he should always have the >>right to accept a draw. > >Fully agreed. You can't insult a GM by insisting on the truth of some program's >score. Remember that it is a match and it is best for the program to do the game as long as possible except the last game even if it is a dead draw in order to make the opponent more tired in the next game. I think that the operator should not help the opponent. If you want to give humans better conditions in the match by not making them tires when the result is clear than a better solution is to agree that there will be other humans that are not involved in the match to decide to stop the game when it is a dead draw. In this case the program does it's best. Otherwise the general acceptance of computer opponents in human >tourneys/matches will decrease further. The operator in a game against a master >player should have sufficient chess competence to make such decision. I'm sure, >that the Fritz operator against Hübner has. The problem is not chess knowledge and I guess that the problem with the Fritz's operator in the 4th game was simply that he was lazy and did not want to play. > >In particular Hübner had refused to play programs for years. I was very >surprised to hear that he's playing a match aginst Fritz. I guess that the reason is money and I think that he is the last player that is deserved to get money for playing against computers after resigning against Deep Junior only because of the fact that the position was not comfortable for him. 2 Other players at the same tournament fighted against Junior in uncomfortable positions and drew against it inspite of the fact of being 1 or 2 pawns down. 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.