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.