Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:10:37 12/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2003 at 10:46:50, martin fierz wrote: >On December 03, 2003 at 09:58:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 03, 2003 at 06:19:38, Thomas Mayer wrote: >> >>>Hi Bob, >>> >>>>> I agree. The above statement combined with another attack on the people he >>>>> describes constructively as "morons" made this, IMO, a rather unpleasent >>>>> post. >>> >>>> So you believe that the TD and ICGA behaved "just fine" in the "debacle in >>>> Graz"??? I've seen 18-year-old TDs make better decisions. >>> >>>you were not there - so how can you decide about the quality of the TDs at all ? >>>Just my two cents... >>> >> >>Er, because I can read? > >vincent just posted some more info on the list case. containing some of the >evidence against list. without that information, how can you possibly know that >ICGA handled the list matter poorly, even if you can read? after reading >vincent's post, i believe they handled it just fine. I haven't said much about the list case. I have mainly talked about the Johnny/Shredder case. But, for the List case, I have gone on record saying the following. There were three options open to the ICGA after receiving a complaint: (1) handle it prior to the event, so that list never gets in. (2) handle it after the event, so that even though list played, and it influenced the final outcome, the pairings were done fairly and those that should have played it played it. (3) Handle it during the event and either (a) forfeit the already-played games, giving the opponents a win even if they drew or lost. There were enough rounds that the pairing errors this would cause in already-played games would be washed out; (b) let it continue to play since it had already beaten some, and later opponents get an easy point rather than possibly a draw or loss. Then, after the event is over, disqualify it from farther participation. The ICGA took a 4th option that was worse. Just kicking it out in the middle. Those that lost (including a commercial program that drew) lost points, just because they were unlucky enough to be paired against it in an early round, while those that were lucky enough to be paired against it post-boot got an easy 1, which certainly skews the final standings a bit. So that is my complaint about how List was handled. Letting it play on would have given the ICGA time to be _sure_ before they brand the author a cheater, something that can't ever be undone. I think it should take more than an anonymous complaint. For example, in one of the Dutch events, several complained to me, prior to the event, about "Bionic Impact". I corresponded with the TD and the facts were known prior to the event. Of course, he still let the program play, but at least the "clone" facts were easily provable and everyone knew what was going on. Before there was any public notification. my $.02 > >cheers > martin > >>The events of this (and past) ICGA events have been well-documented. >> >>I _was_ involved in some of them. >> >>>Greets, Thomas
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.