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.