Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 12:09:45 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 14:21:32, Slater Wold wrote: >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. That's a good point you brought up Slater, no why did they continue? Odd indeed. Terry
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.