Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

Author: Matthew Hull

Date: 12:52:33 12/11/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 11, 2003 at 15:30:46, Terry McCracken wrote:

>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!


Some folks have a problem with legal chess.  I defeated an expert once with the
Grob, winning a piece with a cheapo trap.  A swindle is as good as a brilliancy
on the crosstable.  He was cheesed off royally, aiming many dirty looks at me
for playing such a crap opening.  Maybe you and he are related.



>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>???????????????????????
>>>>>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.