Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 16:20:35 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 12:39:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 11:41:56, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On December 01, 2003 at 11:30:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 01, 2003 at 11:23:09, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>On December 01, 2003 at 11:00:16, Sven Reichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 01, 2003 at 10:17:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>The operator made the decision to play on. But the operator is _not_ allowed >>>>>>to make _any_ decisions while a game is in progress, as per the rules. >>>>>>Therefore this reasoning simply is unsound because it is based on rules that >>>>>>were not in effect. The operator is passive. He _always_ has been passive, >>>>>>at least when we go by the rules in force for these events. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If he is always passive, I don't see the point of having an operator. Most >>>>>programs run on all-purpose hardware (maybe enhanced by some additional >>>>>circuits) with networking capabilities. Why not have the opponents communicate >>>>>directly, using a standard interface like xboard or UCI, maybe relayed via an >>>>>arbiter program? Then they can decide for themselves whether to offer or claim a >>>>>draw. >>>>> >>>>>If the GUI makes decisions for the engine, the combination GUI/engine should be >>>>>considered the competitor. >>>>> >>>>>Sven. >>>> >>>>My understand is that the operator is there for a good reason similar to why a >>>>wise tournament director must be there. Chess computer tournaments are still >>>>evolving and humans need to be there to correct for errors or oversights of the >>>>programmers. >>> >>>Crafty has played over 1 million games on chess servers with no problems. We >>>want the operators there in case there is a network issue that causes a >>>disconnect, or a hardware problem that might require a reboot (very rare), and >>>to discuss things with other programmers. We don't need operators to handle >>>normal "problems" as they simply don't happen. >> >>Please forgive me for saying this, but: "In all due respect, playing your >>engine on a chess server is simply not the same thing as playing in a chess >>computer tournament. You might use similar technology but there are significant >>differences in the two situations." >> >>Bob D. > >And what would those differences be? FIDE has had events on the net. CCT >is a computer chess tournament that works just fine on the internet. The >main difference is that there are no "operator errors" to contend with because >there are no "operators". The two examples you cite are tournaments. When you said "Crafty has played over 1 million games on chess servers with no problems." I did not think you were talking about tournaments. The non-tournament automated use of chess computers at ICC is a different application from a tournament application. Bob D. > >The server is the final arbiter with respect to time, draws, wins and losses. > > >> >>> >>>> When the available rule set fails to properly cover a new >>>>situation, humans must get involved. Hopefully, their actions will be >>>>reasonable. [Throwing a draw away would not be reasonable.] >>>> >>>>Bob D.
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.