Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 08:43:25 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 01:47:06, Nicholas Cooper wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 00:37:54, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 16:21:50, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 2003 at 16:11:03, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>On November 30, 2003 at 15:55:09, Matthew Hull 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. >>>>> >>>>>No. It was the software's choice. That is "who" is playing the game. Ths >>>>>software claimed "draw". The operator overruled the claim, thus "taking the >>>>>dive", throwing the game. >>>>> >>>>>What incentive now has SMK to fix his bugs when his opponents all lay down and >>>>>play dead instead of hold his "bucket of bugs" to the test? If his software is >>>>>so good, why don't all operators simply resign or forfiet before the game even >>>>>starts in deferrence to Shredder's acknowledged superiority? >>>>> >>>>>Ridiculous!!! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Shredder won. Period. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Fritz won. Period. Shredder accepted a gift 1/2 point which it did not earn. >>>>>Shameful!!! >>>> >>>>Although I agree with you on the first part, I have to disagree here. >>>> >>>>You can't blame Shredder for accepting the gift. Only the opponent for offering >>>>it and the TD for not correcting it. ( My opinion of coarse, as usual) >>> >>> >>>To then accept the opposing player's points as a gift is not right in any book >>>of competition, especially if YOUR program screwed up and drew a position that >>>was won. >>> >>>What about the other competitors? They have a stake in the outcome as well. >>>Their rights to a fair and honest result have been trampled under foot, >>>especially the Fritz team. Their championship was taken away by this unethical, >>>un-earned 1/2 point that was GIVEN FREE to Shredder. >>> >>>This should never have been allowed. As a result, the real winners have been >>>robbed of rightful laurels. >>> >>>MH >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Tony >>>> >>>>> >>>>>MH >> >>Oh yeah whatever. Do you hear the Fritz Team whining? No, you don't. >> >>BTW the draw had to be called just before the position was to repeat itself, >>they didn't bring the TD's over and say "Look I will draw with Kh7!" >> >>So guess what, Fritz and Shredder _had_ to play for the tie break. >> >>That's how the "pieces fall" so other than my stand Jonny should have claimed >>the draw it didn't, also why did they keep playing, (Jonny) in an obvious lost >>position? >> >>I'd say that's unethical too! > >What a load of rubbish Terry! >I'm sure the Fritz team are disappointed about what happened but are exhibited >good sportsmanship by not complaining publicly - hopefully they will lodge an >official complaint with the organisers. > >You seem to miss the key point entirely- Jonny DID claim a draw! However, it's >operator decided not to claim it, which is against the principle of an operator >only being passive. It is this interference which makes the final decision >incomprehensible... > >As regards playing on in a completely lost position, whilst this IS unethical in >a human game (though not forbidden by the rules), computers don't care about >playing a few for moves, so it's a non-issue. > >Notice the difference- what occured in the Shredder-Jonny game broke the RULES, >whereas playing in a lost position is only at worst UNETHICAL. I missed nothing, the computer did claim the draw and it was ignored! So blame the operator, and author! What I notice here is people tend to elevate the machine over the human, what does that say?
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.