Author: Slater Wold
Date: 11:21:32 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 14:15:11, Roger D Davis wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 14:10:45, Slater Wold wrote: > >>Is not so suspect... >> >>Johannes Zwanzger said that Shredder was clearly won, and that he did not want >>to 'steal the victory' from Shredder because of a stupid bug. THAT is why he >>did not get a TD, and kept playing. It was Johannes Zwanzger's choice, and no >>one else. >> >>Shredder won. Period. > >I think it depends on whether you believe programs should be allowed to blunder, >and whether operators should be completely passive, or whether they should be >allowed to use their own judgment to change the outcome. My own preference is to >eliminate the human operator as a variable, however noble his intentions. >Otherwise you end up with results that seem chivalrous at one level, but have >absurd consequences at the level of the entire tournament. Plus, human variables >should be eliminated because it's intended to be engine versus engine. > >Roger Had the game actually been drawn, and Johannes Zwanzger lost the game because he didn't want Shredder to lose to a 'rookie', I would think it was bogus. But it was a won position, and it was a bug in Shredder. Hell, Shredder was showing something like +10 on the screen for itself...most people wouldn't have even played on at that point.
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.