Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:48:49 01/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2003 at 10:57:39, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On January 20, 2003 at 10:21:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 agree that the comparison between soccer and chess doesn't hold everywhere (I >would be crazy to suggest that on a chess (or a soccer) forum ;) Basically, what >I meant was that whatever solution you come up, there are always drawbacks as >well. > >If you skip the tie-break, then you don't have one winner. If you play "45 10" >until you have a winner (which sounds fairest) then you don't know how long the >tournament takes. If you play blitz instead it's similar to penalties in soccer. >(it's just a different game) Disadvantages everywhere. > >In order to choose one solution, we should first agree what is more important >for us: to have the "real winner" of a "45 10" tournament. (which rules out a >blitz tiebreak) Or to have lots of spectators. (which rules out Uri's suggestion >of playing one game a month) We simply can't have everything. > > >>- 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? > >I didn't mean the "end at that day" literally. (bad formulation, sorry) I meant >that: > >(a) people (programmers as well as spectators) have an idea when the tournament >is finished approximately >(b) people know before the tournament, what days they have to reserve in order >to participate (if the tie-break with "45 10" games would be next weekend, >everyone in the tournament would have to reserve that weekend too, because >everyone can be a potential tie-breaker) > >Hope this is clearer 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___! > >You mean you missed the tie-break games? Ack! That's unfortunate! :( > > >>Anyway, the whole event was fantastic. > >Agreed 100%! (although I only could see the last 2 rounds) > > >>Let me end with a word about Ruffian since you are a real fan of. > >Uh, let's hope we don't start a flame war now. :) > > >>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. > >Well, AFAIK he never claimed that he made this engine in a few weeks. In this >interview he gave he mentioned when he started with the engine. (I don't >remember the date/year now though) > >I don't see the "must keep secrecy over month and years" as you see it. People >are different. He just chose to code "at home" (and surely read about CC on the >internet) and work on his engine w/o participating in this community. There's >enough information available on the net to produce an engine which comes close >to Craftys strength. (I'm not implying it's easy though) > > >>That is completely against all known aspects of modern openess, >>democracy and science. > >I would also prefer if he would for example participate on this board, but he >chooses not to. And he even gave a reason for his decision. (boards like these >tend to be repetitive etc) And you can't deny that. :) [just think about >DB-posts :)] > >And maybe, he will write a paper about forward-pruning one day! You never know! >:) > > >>You must accept that there is no hidden mysth that would >>allow you to invent such a good prog out of nothing. > >I don't. I'm a (chess-) programmer myself and have a pretty good idea what it >takes to produce such a strong engine. > > >>So then you hide yourself >>for years and then make even a mysth about your name at the beginning. > >Not sure what you mean by that. If I don't shout out loud on a CC forum, I'm >hiding? :) Also, I didn't know that he tried to not reveal his name at the >beginning. But I'm not always reading this board, so it's very well I missed >some posts. ;) > >I'm not a fan of Ruffian (although I even used the word groupie, hehe). I just >think it was very refreshing to see such a strong new engine in CC. That and the >fact that there's still a slim hope that the engine will make it to the Linux >(or even OSX) platform adds to it, I confess. (I'm sorry if I couldn't care less >about Fritz 8.0.0.8.3.56.3.3.45 beta - it just doesn't support my platform(s)) > >Sargon I can't imagine a flame war with you since you are so smart to even interprete things the way I COULD have meant them although literally I might have written the wrong English. So for me different opinions are the blood of each serious debate, otherwise invisible nodding could be sufficient. :) To Ruffian you give me a good reason to elaborate so that the reader might understand better. BTW when the debate reached CCC it was already in FCP for instance, which is a forum "mainly" for amateur programmers and their fans. And there I could follow the debate, but also not from the beginning. The point is this, and that is fact, the first results already existed of the program and therefore people asked about details and also the name of the programmer and then something strange happened, always. I think it was Frank Quisinsky, father of this FCP forum, explained that HE knew the name but unfortunately he could not give it away but he were in close talks with the UNKNOWN person. I mean such a procedure is it what I would call strange, even dishonest. BUT!!! In other parts of our cultural life the same also DOES happen from time to time. For certain reasons authors of whole novels want to hide and remain anonymously. That happens. Often they are known but don't want that pictures or interviews appear. That happens. Just recently I learned about the real reasons of such an author from the USA. He simply was - allegedly - a Secret Agent during the Flower Power Times and he might well have inspired people to take drugs and stuff like that. So, clear enough he didn't want to be on the front pages. Also others might have good reasons to fled the public drivel in the massmedia industry. Often success is there without further details or just because of the lack of facts. BUT!!! CC is also part of sports so to speak. So, I think that it's a bit unfair, if you hide, ok, you can hide, it's your personal decision and right, but then you can't expect to particiapate in a sport. But exactly this did happen. Because in that camp of amateur programmers, seldom coming from the USA, because the whole attitude is so much opposing the openess of the American style, we have many who see in that hidance the reason of justification for their whole existance. Which is also nonsense but you should have read the tone in the messages. The whole amateur camp is following a big mistake, a delusion. The same why a programmer could NOT invent a program for chess out of nothing, that could also ever be done for other products. But the "camp" is happy and proud, that for instance a so-called ARENA program (for chess database) could almost do the same things as ChessBase8 without the MultiMedia of course. But that is also a hoax. Because if all other features are there it is clear that ARENA is like the ROLEX watch from Thailand. If you know what I mean. Also Japan has the same ideology. Copying this is called. Of course ARENA is programmed in a different form. But the ideas, the core of it is copied from ChessBase or this Russian program. And our amateurs are proud that this prog is for FREE. They do oversee that without ChessBase and its always novelties, so let's call it creativity, we would still have no ARENA like features. We would still crawl through ATARI like progs. Who knows. Anyway we kill our own future if we think that such complexity of systems could also be for free. It is a so called pubertarian or student attitude, when you see just the effort and the outcome but don't think about family, children and educational costs. I did it the same. As a student I ate cheap menues at the official "mensa", not spending too much thought how much that meal did cost in reality. Of course I had my books in boxes where oranges had been imported in. Of course smart people can copy all what is once invented, created and produced. Where's the mysth? There is none. The problematic question is if based on such a behaviour a living could base on. Answer is of course NONE. So, there you hopefully see the idiocy of such an attitude. It's as if the junkies could get their dope for free. But could dope exist without the financial background? No! The whole thing is a crime I would say. It's like these so called snowball systems. Where the inventors get all the money by exploiting and cheating the masses who can't find others to exploit in the end. I could never understand - and this is NOT off-topic to be clear about - why a few critics like TC fought with such energy against ChessBase, although they, and also TC (!), do use the features of the ChessBase products for sure. So, here you have now the background of the short verdict "hypocrisy" in my last message. It seems as if the CC as a whole is infected by this irrational thinking. How far the whole thing is forced by the USA laws who enforce the publication of any products, I still have not fully understood or thought about. 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.