Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 13:54:41 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 16:43:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Robert...It was both a philosophical point, in the form of a rhetorical question!:o)) Terry....Tsss!
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.