Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Darse, how about defending your perspective.

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 09:35:31 12/11/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 11, 2003 at 12:13:15, Terry McCracken wrote:

>On December 11, 2003 at 09:18:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On December 11, 2003 at 01:00:44, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>
>>>On December 10, 2003 at 22:44:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 19:54:43, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 17:40:58, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 08:22:22, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 03:22:44, Peter Kappler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 21:18:39, Roger D Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You've started what has turned out to be an enormous thread, and you've openly
>>>>>>>>>stated your credentials in doing so. Reading the responses, my sympathies lie
>>>>>>>>>with the other posters. I would like to ask, however, that you defend your
>>>>>>>>>perspective. If you truly believe that those who disagree need to reexamine the
>>>>>>>>>rules or their own logic, this shouldn't be hard to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Roger
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perhaps after reading the responses he realizes he's wrong.  :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I doubt it. He posted due to a request, and wasn't intending to fight about it.
>>>>>>>Besides, he's been treated with contempt! Why should he be bothered to reply,
>>>>>>>only to be attacked by a pack of wolves?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Terry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He was attacked with facts and experience.  I suspect he recognizes the concept
>>>>>>of "untenable position" pretty well...
>>>>>
>>>>>The _key_ word here is _attacked_ and that isn't the correct way to present your
>>>>>facts. It's insultive, and I doubt he intented to argue regardless of how the
>>>>>facts were presented.
>>>>>
>>>>>Although, I have no doubt he could make strong arguements that would have led to
>>>>>the suffocation of the board. So what we be the point?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_I_ did not attack anyone.  So I don't know what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>You were not too friendly to say the least, and others were worse.
>>
>>Look at my original post in response to his. There was nothing
>>friendly or unfriendly about it.  I simply pointed out flaws in his
>>understanding of the rules being used, as well as flaws in his understanding
>>of circumstances surrounding the event.
>>
>>>
>>>  He
>>>>presented a conclusion that was mired in inaccuracies and bad assumptions
>>>>(He assumed FIDE rules were used when they are not.)  His errors were pointed
>>>>out by me and several others.
>>>
>>>Yes, most who don't know a tenth what he knows! BTW the FIDE Rules should be
>>>enforced, and since they aren't in all situations, this should be changed.
>>
>>FIDE rules can't possibly apply in all cases.  The computer can not call
>>the TD over.  It can't write rules down on a scoresheet.  It can't move
>>the pieces nor touch the clock.  The rules for these issues have been around
>>for 35 years now.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If he made an error it was within the context of the ICGA rules. He's right
>>>about the CC Olympiad. He's an expert at the highest level as a TD.
>>>BTW did you check his credentials? He's no rookie, he's had plenty of
>>>experience.
>>
>>Experience in _HUMAN_ events does not apply here.  This is computer chess.
>>I have directed _many_ human events.  Fortunately I have been involved with
>>many computer events, which he has not.
>
>Not true, but agreed not to the extent you have been involved.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>He really does know what he can and can't do.
>>>
>>>He's a programmer like yourself, and has developed Poki, the worlds top Poker
>>>Programme, and he is computer scientist with a PHD and to top it off a Canidate
>>>Master, who has arbitrated many high level tournaments, including computer
>>>chess.
>>
>>What computer chess events?  None that I know of.  IE none of the ICCA/ICGA/ACM
>>events, nor the Dutch tournaments, etc.
>
>He spoke of the Chess Olypiads, read it!
>>

Do you know what a "chess olympiad" is?  Didn't think so.


>>>
>>>If he had caught the error himself, he would have called Shredder vs Jonny a
>>>draw, unless the ICGA said differently.
>>
>>That is not what he said.  Re-read his post.  It was wrong.
>
>He said both actually, I can read just fine, thanks!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>But he pointed out that 3rd repeat does not have to be a draw, however in the
>>>case of ICGA he normally wouldn't have the right to ignore the proplem or make
>>>an official decision on his own to say play on. But since the game wasn't caught
>>>in time he can rule with the body of the ICGA, if everyone is compliant to say
>>>the win stands, which apperently he and they and all the rest were.
>>
>>The decision was wrong.  It was wrong during the game, it was wrong
>>after the game.  It could have been corrected at any point.  It could _still_
>>be corrected...
>
>No, the parties agreed, and you know they will stand by this agreement, no
>matter how much it annoys you.

The "parties" did _not_ agree.  The "parties" are every participant in the
tournament.


>>
>>
>>>In cases where there is really big problems, he's right that as an arbitor
>>>he does have a say, even in the ICGA if the ICGA allows him to exert his
>>>authority.
>>>
>>>However, this can be argued till the Cows Come Home.
>>>>
>>>>He should hardly expect to waltz in, make some comments that are really not
>>>>relevant to what we are talking about, and waltz out without any counterpoints
>>>>being made.
>>>
>>>He sure can, if he was asked to post the ICGA decision! And he did!
>>
>>And he was wrong...
>
>According to you, yes.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>As far as FIDE Rules are concerned, he can enforce them and if Computer Chess is
>>>exempt from FIDE Rules, that should change as of now!
>>
>>There is no "if".  You have to first be involved in an event with computers
>>to understand why FIDE rules don't fit everywhere.  Most do.  But the ICGA
>>has made exceptions where appropriate, for good reason.  If he doesn't know
>>what those exceptions are, and why they were made, that is hardly my problem.
>
>Yes no yes no who cares...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>It's absurd that a computer can't be subjected to the Official Rules of Chess!
>>
>>Why don't you first think about the problems?  Computers are _not_ humans.
>
>I did! So the problem is that, a problem to be resolved. Someday the machines
>will hold their own tournaments, unless we keep machines handicapped idiots!
>>
>>>
>>>Third Repeat is the most tricky rule in chess and isn't mandatory, unless the
>>>draw is claimed. For computers this hasn't been addressed properly within the
>>>ICGA.
>>
>>The draw was claimed as well as a computer can claim it.  The operator chose
>>to ignore the claim and let the opponent win.  What would you do if a blind
>>player told his proxy to claim a repetition, but the proxy did not, letting
>>the blind player lose on time?  Would _that_ be reasonable?  That is what
>>happened in this case...
>
>And....You know I know this right? Well, I do!

And you are simply wrong for thinking that is OK.

There _is_ a specific rule, adopted by the ICGA and approved by every
participant that joined the event, that prevented this very behavior.


>>
>>>
>>>Three fold repition of position is IMO the hardest rule to make clear, even more
>>>so than en passant!
>>
>>THe 3-fold repetition is a trivial rule to handle either as a player, or as
>>a TD.
>
>Yeah, whatever.., I sure it could allude you...in a human event! I catch them in
>GM games, and smile.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>It's of course optional too, and in this case computers haven't a problem in
>>>this area.
>>
>>It is not optional if the program claims it.
>
>Are you through with the didactics?

Are you through with the nonsense?





This page took 0.01 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.