Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:32:54 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 14:24:02, Terry McCracken wrote: >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. I believe you started the "are you" stuff. You can certainly end it. There were _other_ points you didn't address in this post, however.
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.