Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:21:29 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 09:47:07, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 09:37:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >[snip] > >>That shouldn't be the motto of CCC for sure. But you are right with the >>conditions, I didn't know that until just a few minutes ago when I read it and I >>already excused myself for that one. I fear that Bob or Bruce didn't even think >>that they could be that strong and so they didn't spend too much thought on that >>matter, the tie-break. BTW we had the same procedure in Masstricht. I am sure >>that SHREDDER would be Wch and not JUNIOR if it wouldn't have been in Blitz at >>the end. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >How many tournaments (not necessarily chess) do you know where ties for the >first place are handled much different? The only thing I know is the FA soccer >cup (I think) in England, where they replay a whole game when the first game is >drawn. (not sure what they do if the 2nd game is draw too though - I'm sure >Andrew (CTID) knows =) > >In most other soccer tourneys they have overtime and afterwards penalties. Or >sudden death in ice hockey. > >The main reason for this is to: > >-make sure the game/tournament ends at that day (otherwise the commitment is too >big) >-entertain the spectators (I think the tie-break was a blast) > > >If I'd be in charge of the rules, I would skip the tie-break (although it's fun >to watch! :) and just call the engines with the most points the winners of the >tournament. > >The reason for this is that - although you can tell people 100 times that this >blitz tiebreak is a lot of luck - people will forget about it and the only thing >remember will be that Ruffian won the CCT5. (I have nothing against Ruffian! >It's just that Yace and Crafty had the same #points :) > >Sargon (aka ruffian_groupie ;) Thanks for your message; let me just add two things: - soccer is different because you have real human beings and a complete staff on the run, a tie could never be solved irectly afterwards; of course sudden death is luck but the logic is mainly that BEFORE you had time enough to win; chess is different; compared with soccer, Crafty and Yace would have a clear advantage over Ruffian, so that is what makes it a bit sad to see; perhaps your comparison with soccer would be better if we assumed that the decision would then played between two teams a 5 men... :) - I want to add this one that is completely overseen in our case: you said that it should have been done in a day; what day are you talking about? For the Americans the tournament yould well go on till 4 o'clock MEZ. For them it was 18 P.M. or such when the end was near. They started really early! Also: Two more games in full length - that wouldn't have been a problem at all, BUT it weasn't planned before, I must admit by now. Hey, I was too stupid to continue to observe because I didn't know the rule. And I thoought that it was either finished or done on another day... So I missed the whole high-light - sh___! Anyway, the whole event was fantastic. Also on ICC because you could look at the same time how the Marsians were doing at Wijk. So that was a good Sunday. I wished that Bruce would give us a few thoughts because he had deserved to win the tournament. The last round was a real nightmare to him I fear. I still hope for some math in words (!) on the conditions as such because Ruffian, you must admit were never among the leaders and got his points against weaker progs. And then the winner? A bit strange. So one could assume that if it were about 15 rounds also Quark could have won in the end?? In special if you have a prog like Crafty that is public and everybody might have prepared against. So it might be that a lower prog might have luck against it. So that becomes more probable the more rounds you have. Let me end with a word about Ruffian since you are a real fan of. The whole excitement about that program is somewhat hypocrisy. Let me explain. For certain nobody on the Earth could program awinner prog just out of nothing. Without tuning against known progs etc. Also as a programmer you can't enter into CC and start last week and next month you have a killer. That is impossible. So - it is clear that if you want to surprise the world that you must keep secrecy over months and years. I don't see the value of such an attitude. That is completely against all known aspects of modern openess, democracy and science. You must accept that there is no hidden mysth that would allow you to invent such a good prog out of nothing. So then you hide yourself for years and then make even a mysth about your name at the beginning. Then you give secret interviews almost like Bobby Fischer the whole thing I would say. What is the reason for such a pubertarian behaviour? As you know that nobody would believe in any case that this OUT OF NOTHING would be possible? I see no positive aspect in doing so. Because it's against all principles of science and the history of CC. Just my opinion. Kind regards, Rolf Tueschen
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.