Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

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.