Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:43:58 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 11:43:25, Terry McCracken wrote: >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? It says the rules should be followed by everybody. In this case, since this is computer vs computer competition, the humans have _zero_ influence on the games, supposedly. At least that is how the rules read. The humans can adjust nothing, change nothing. If they make a mistake the game has to be backed up to the point where the error happened, etc.
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.