Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 12:30:46 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 15:02:44, Matthew Hull wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 14:32:30, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 11, 2003 at 13:41:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 11, 2003 at 13:20:29, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>Robert, >>>> >>>>I think it is not the case to continuo. I will stay on my ideas as you are going >>>>to stay on yours. >>>> >>>>I am interested on winning games on the board and not in the forum. >>>> >>>>I am sorry, but I do trust more Darse than you, as well as the TD in Graz. >>>> >>>>I only hope that in future the programmers will agree to stop the games when the >>>>score is not lower than -10 to avoid "ridiculus". >>>> >>>>By being a chess player I find to continuo playing "extremely lost games" >>>>offensive and not useful at all to show how strong the chess programs have >>>>become. >>>> >>>>I am saying this here now to avoid someone would link this to Shredder games. >>>> >>>>I am a true chess and computer chess lover and hate to see non senses like >>>>playing extremely lost positions. >>>> >>>>How can a programmer be proud of not losing or winning a game extremely lost? >>> >>>Let me turn that around: "How can a programmer be proud of winning when >>>his opponent resigned in a game he might possibly not win?" That is the >>>case at hand, in fact. Had the program resigned before that point, you >>>would have won, no uproar would have occurred, no injustice would have been >>>done, and all would be well. But the rules of chess do _not_ require that >>>the opponent resign. The players are allowed to play until a rule of chess >>>ends the game in draw or mate or time forfeit. >>> >>>The moral of the story is "debug better". >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Does it makes sense a statement like "well, this year my program did score very >>>>well as we scored 5 out of 8 while last year I scored 0. The first game it went >>>>down -12, but the opponent had a bug and we could win the game. The second one >>>>the opponent had a mate in 12, but a bug made the program lose 3 pieces and we >>>>won. The third game we won with 3 pieces less because the opponent program got a >>>>bug that removed all the hashtables use and so on..." >>>> >>>>Wow there is a lot to be proud! >>> >>> >>>He could certainly be proud of the fact that he showed up with a program >>>that could play correctly and not screw up due to various bugs that were >>>not found due to lack of proper testing. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>I am clearly exagerrating, but it seems for some people this would be >>>>acceptable... >>> >>> >>>What is acceptable is for a program to win the games on its own. Not via >>>an operator making decisions contrary to the rules, and the TD allowing >>>such rule violations to stand. I have lost games due to bugs. I have >>>lost on time due to bugs. That is just a part of the game. As a human >>>I have won _many_ games a rook or queen down, when my opponent either ran >>>out of time or made a gross blunder. I don't feel any better or worse >>>about winning on time than I do by mating my opponent. If I win on time, >>>I simply used my time better, and time _is_ a part of the game. >>> >>>Tournaments are about results, nothing else. >>> >>> >>Really? Then you have a problem then sir, one which needs no explaining to the >>readers. >> >>No matter what the damn rules say, this attitude reeks! > >It's fresh air to me, bub. Antinomianism is what stinks. You're an disingenuous cad and I can imagine you would attempt to play me after you were a Queen down, as you're an arrogant self-serving fool! > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>??????????????????????? >>>>I will never understand this! >>>> >>>>Sandro
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.