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.