Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:21:38 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 07:21:10, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 22:14:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 13:54:10, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 2003 at 12:59:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 30, 2003 at 12:11:45, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>you are not fair as you did not read what has been written about what happened. >>>>> >>>>>What happened was allowed by the agreed (by all partecipants) rules. >>>> >>>>You are simply wrong. >>> >>>I was not there but what I wrote/being told makes you wrong, not me. >> >>Nope. The Johnny operator was told to claim a draw. He chose not to as >>he thought Shredder should win. That is _not_ an option. There is no >>discussion about that point. The operator is _passive_. His refusing to >>claim the draw was _not_ passive. He admitted it. > >I was told no and many people are trying to tell you the same, but it seems your >interests in this matter are higher than mine...\ I have no "interests" in this other than as an observer. But your information is simply wrong. Go to the ICCA web site and then ask (or look here) to see what happened. The operator specifically said that he saw the draw claim but chose to not claim the draw because Shredder had a winning score and was obviously suffering from a bug. That is a flagrant violation of ICGA rules. I don't even begin to see how you can say/think otherwise. > >I am a chess player and not a programmer even if I do make programs. Not chess >programs. > >So you are claiming that since we did not see the 3 moves repetition and since >our opponent did not claim the draw which he could do. I'd bet your GUI saw it, if your GUI detects repetition. His GUI _did_ see it. He ignored the claim by the program. That was wrong. >Pls. note that this in chess games is an option and not forced. I think it >should be the same with the computer too. You are free to think whatever you want. But the rules say different. When the engine says "play this move" there is no "request" implied. It is a forced operation by the operator. When the computer says "this is a repetition" that is also a forced claim the operator has to relay. If the computer says "offer a draw" that is _also_ a forced offer the operator must make. The operator has _no_ say-so in what is or isn't done. >Chess is the human way to play it and >not otherwise. The computers should do the same and not have different rules. >However what the federation states for me is fine. >Then since our opponent did not request the draw repetions we should have stop >the game? The "opponent" claimed a draw. The human operator chose to not do so. The rules say that when an error is made, and this was certainly an error since the operator failed to follow the computer's instructions, the game backs up to that point and the error is corrected. In this case, you back up to that position and process the repetition claim. It was correct. The game ends in a draw. The rules were followed. All is done. As it is, it was ridiculous. >This is pure nonsense!! >Next step would be to advise the opponent not to make specific moves to avoid >mate in x moves? Yes. That is what I would expect. Today the computer says "offer a draw" and the operator says "no". Tomorrow the computer says "take that rook pawn" and the operator says "no". The ICCA avoided this years ago by taking the operator totally out of the game. An operator can't even agree to accept or decline a draw or resignation, only the programs can do so, otherwise the TD has to be involved. To prevent human intervention. > >I agree we should change the rules to make tham more clear to avoid these >problems, but we should ALSO LET THE PROGRAM RESIGN BEFORE THE REACH POSITIONS >EVEN MY CAT CAN WIN! If a program resigns, the resignation is official, so far as I have read in the rules of past events. The _operator_ is not allowed to resign for the program without the TDs permission. My program has been resigning and offering and accepting/declining draws for years. When it offered or accepted in Jakarta or Paris, there was never any discussion about overruling it. > >Maybe you are not a strong chess player, so I hope you understand what I mean... I'm apparently not strong enough to understand the nonsensical decisions made in this event, yes... But I don't think chess sense is the issue here. It is common sense. > >>> >>>>The operator can _not_ choose to play a move he >>>>wants to play. He _must_ play what the computer says to play. And in this >>>>case the computer said "I claim a draw" >>> >>>I was told that the program did not "claim a draw", this is why you are wrong. >> >>Aha. You want to "split hairs". The program is not the GUI? That's a >>crock. The "player" is a combination of the computer, the GUI, the >>program, the operating system, and anything else used. Shredder might >>well be the best program there. But that means _nothing_ here. It had a >>bug. I lost games due to bugs, I drew won games due to bugs. Its just >>a part of chess. > >So your programs are without bugs? come on... Can you not read either? I clearly said "I drew won games due to bugs". Who would have a bug to make me draw a won game? Think about it for a minute. Who would have a bug to make me lose a won game? Think about that for a minute too. Then "come on". > >> >>Had I been sitting across the table from Johnny, _I_ would have claimed >>the draw and refused to play on since my program had obviously made a mistake >>due to a bug that was my fault. To accept such a dishonest win taints the >>event, the program, the author and the host. > >I think it is disonest to make such claims. Dishonest to state the truth? What part of "dis" do you not understand??? Dis == Not > >To continuo over lost games is ridiculus...that's not chess. Do you know how to >play chess or only how to make programs? Do you know how to follow rules? Apparently not... > >> >> >>> >>>>and the operator chose to ignore that >>>>and force the game to continue. >>>> >>>>That is _definitely_ against the rules. It has _always_ been against the >>>>rules. The TD was incompetent for making such a stupid decision. > >I think it is incompetent to make claims without knowing thing is reality! >It is also stupid to comment also other people decision without knowing things >as they really went. We are all commenting on what we _know_. If there are details we don't know that went into this decision, that is another problem... > >>>> >>>>There is _no_ wayh to justify this, and the 2003 WCCC title is forever >>>>marred by this stupidity... > >I hope the moderator will do something because you are insulting people here. > >>> >>>I think this is quite unfair to the TD director. >>>I will not follow you in making this kind of judgements. It is not in my style. >>>I accept the decision by the TD director whichever it is. >>> >>>>I think it time for the ICGA to fall apart, or else find a good TD. IM Mike >>>>Valvo _never_ allowed such nonsense at all the events he ran. Jaap simply has >>>>no business doing this, it is "beyond his abilities". > > >>>This is really unfair. I had a different opinion of you being fair. >>> >> >>How many examples of poor TD-manship would you like? _every_ event has >>yet another Jaap blunder. I went to 20+ years of computer chess events >>with IM Mike Valvo TDing most of them. We _never_ had this sort of >>nonsense. Men were men. Rules were rules. No longer, apparently. > >I think you have drinked too much... I don't drink _at all_, thank you. > >> >>But if you want some examples of his nonsensical decisions, just ask. >> >> >> >> >>>>> >>>>>Maybe we can improve the rules, but we MUST followed and accept them once we >>>>>have accepted them. Both in the good or bad. >>>> >>>>Everybody accepted the rules. But the TD did _not_ follow them. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>There is no more we can say on thim matter. I understand we may have different >>>>>opinions, but the rules are the rules. >>>> >>>>And the rules were broken... > >Again this is only your opinion. I was not there and I have a different opion. I >am not insulting anyone which have a different opinion. > >>>It seems this is your point of view, not everybody's.... >> >>Again, from someone on the team that benefitted. The human operator may >>_not_ interfere in the game. The rules are _clear_. They _always_ have >>been. > >This is really a bottom hit...you are unfair...I want to be kind...otherwise you >would have me forewer... Look at what you are writing. I have been in similar positions in the past. Ask people how _I_ responded. A machine died. I let my opponent stop the clock for longer than the rules allowed for, even though I would have won on time in a very tough ending that I was not sure I could win OTB. But the machine was supplied by the ACM, it died, it wasn't the opponent's fault, and I just stopped the clock until another game finished and he could use that machine instead. I consider that to be the way this thing _should_ be run. It is about the two players playing the game. Not about what the humans want. Not about luck of my picking a good machine and you picking a bad one and you losing on time. > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Anything more on this matter may be just misleading. >>>> >>>>It is misleading to talk about a ridiculous decision that prevented Fritz >>>>from winning an event it deserved to win? Oh, I forgot which program you >>>>were involved with. :) >>> >>>I did not took any decision. Am I free to tell my point of view or only people >>>that are on one side can? >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Does anyone really believe that we would have been allowed to win the game if >>>>>this was against the rules? >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, because we watched it _happen_. >>> >>>We are not sponsored by anyone...everybody know it...is seems you do not. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I hope to see people talk about the chess games as players and not caring about >>>>>things which have very little to do with chess. >>>>> >>>>>I am wondering if this is a chess site or something else... >>>> >>>>I would be more interested to know if the WCCC 2003 was a chess tournament, >>>>or "somethign else" which is what it appeared to be. >>> >>>If you are a better programmer why you do not show it to us? >> >>What does my being a "better programmer" have to do with anything? Do you >>simply want to shift the topic to something that is a bit more favorable to >>you? I didn't mention _anything_ about "better programmer". This is about >>rules and nothing else. > >triple ugh... I think you are reading a different set of text from me. You say something about "if you are a better programmer" when I had not mentioned programming or my program at all. Then when I explain that, you go "ugh". > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I stated that we would have won the championship no matter anything and we did. >>>> >>>>Ugh... >>> >>>Well, I did...people here wrote my post just after loosing to Fritz. >> > >Well, I am a chess player (I hope you know what it means) and see things from a >play point of view, not bugs...+20 is more than won to me...maybe not to you... I am 55 years old. I have been playing chess since I was about 10. So I guess you could say that I am a chess player also... I suspect I was playing chess before you were wearing diapers... Not that that makes any difference to this discussion. > >>If rules were followed you would _not_ have won. You would have been >>1/2 point behind Fritz and the tournament would have been over. Your >>predictions count for one point less than nothing. Predictions are cheap >>and meaningless. As I said, Shredder might have been the best program >>there. But it didn't honestly win the event. This will be forever >>tainted. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Think about how I could knew this from a chess point of view instead of making a >>>>>lot of noise on nonsense things. >>>> >>>> >>>>double ugh... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Pls. speak about chess and chess games, engines etc...otherwise change sport. >>>> >>>>I think I'll go puke... >>> >>>Why not horses? >> >>How about Karate? >> >>I talk that language too, although it has nothing to do with this >>lousy event management... > >That's a great idea!! Maybe this would give you more than 1% chances with me... > >Sandro > You are talking about a shredder vs Crafty game? I would have more than a 1% chance there. Might show up with hardware that is more than 50-50 in fact. Don't write checks you can't cash. And it is better to stick to the single argument rather than wandering all over the planet. >> >>... >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sandro >>> >>>Sandro
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.