Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 11:24:02 12/11/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 11, 2003 at 13:32:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On December 11, 2003 at 12:46:16, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On December 11, 2003 at 12:35:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Comuter Chess Olypiad, don't try being condescending with me, it won't work!
>>>
>
>It already has worked.  Again, do you know what a "chess olympiad" event
>really is?  This time a hint:  It is _not_ computer vs computer.
>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>You know exactly what I mean, don't make a stupid game of it!
>
>I can't read your mind.  You are the one making a stupid game out of
>this discussion...
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>I never said what transpired was ok, but that the ruling in the end with the
>>permission of Frans Morsch etc., was just!
>
>If it is "just" it is "ok".  "just" comes from "justice" which means
>"according to rule of law".  This was not according to the rules in
>force for the event...
>
>
>>>
>>>There _is_ a specific rule, adopted by the ICGA and approved by every
>>>participant that joined the event, that prevented this very behavior.
>>
>>Circles....I already agreed that this was an error!!
>
>
>Then why are you in the argument?  I have _also_ said this same thing.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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?
>>
>>ARE YOU!@@#$%
>
>are you?


Hmmm now it has become an " Are You?" thread....sigh, I'm too ill to continue
this banter.


You're on your own now, the stage is yours.



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.