Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

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.