Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:40:45 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 14:32:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Tough!
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.