Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:14:19 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 19:20:35, Bob Durrett wrote: >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. Perhaps I am just dense, but I don't see how. The first two years crafty was on ICC, it played in 1-2 human tournaments _every day_. All it needed was for someone to match it, or for me to tell it to match someone, and away it went, with absolutely no problems of any kind... > >> >>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.