Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 13:08:23 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 06:20:48, Amir Ban wrote: >On December 10, 2003 at 19:04:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 10, 2003 at 18:34:54, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2003 at 18:12:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2003 at 17:27:04, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 15:29:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 13:33:46, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 13:19:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 10:48:21, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You can still do this with a local FICS server, authors present. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But what's the advantage of autoplay then? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- No bungling of repetition draws. >>>>>>>- No issues of operator errors and/or fatigue affecting the games. >>>>>>>- No time lost in move transmission. >>>>>>>- Programmers/operators are more free to move about and relax without fear of >>>>>>>missing a move and losing time. >>>>>>>- Programs make all the decisions about draw offers, draw acceptance, resigning, >>>>>>>etc. The human element is removed and it's true CC. >>>>>>>- More rounds can be played in the time specified, reducing costs to >>>>>>>participants and organizers alike. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's all advantages and no disadvantages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Matt >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I can't even believe that question was asked, much less answered. It >>>>>>seems intuitively obvious to the casual observer, for those that play >>>>>>hundreds of thousands of games on chess servers... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Well, perhaps I don't qualify as a casual observer, but you and Matt are making >>>>>no case at all, and shouting "it's so obvious !" doesn't make your case. >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps the solution would be for you to observe a WCCC and see what little >>>>>difference this would make. >>>>> >>>>>Amir >>>> >>>>I _have_ observed them. I have seen operator interference. I have seen games >>>>that had to be backed up. I have seen time lost because an operator was away >>>>from the board for restroom break or whatever. >>>> >>> >>>Operators lose time all the time, going to the bathroom, have coffee, wandering >>>to other tables, or even reading CCC. Everybody allows 10 minutes or so for lost >>>time, or adjust the clock later, and it makes so little difference to the game >>>that I don't know why it should even be discussed. >>> >>>I've only been attending since 1995, and I don't remember any problem caused by >>>operators. >>> >>> >>>>How could you _not_ think that an automatic event would be better? IE on the >>>>CCT events we can chat in the games via kibitz. We can chat in channels to a >>>>wider audience. This would happen locally where we could gather around >>>>interesting games and discuss them without worrying about missing something >>>>on our own games. We could use automatic pairings, so that round 2 fires up >>>>right after round 1 ends, compressing the event and allowing even more rounds >>>>(or fewer days). Etc. I don't see _any_ down-side to getting the humans >>>>out of the loop, since the computers are supposedly playing the games anyway. >>>> >>> >>>Sorry, I don't understand this at all. >>> >>>Pairings are done at the end of a round, by a pairing program. Except for the >>>handshake, how do operators delay the next round ? >> >>I can't ever recall an event where the starting time was announced as 7pm >>and at 7pm all N games started. With automatic software this would not >>happen. Even more important, start times can be moved up when all games >>finish early. But not if we depend on operators as they can go to eat, >>knowing the next round doesn't start until 7pm. When it might actually start >>at 6pm if everyone were ready. Even more importantly, NO operator time would >>be needed or lost. It would be computer vs computer, with no time lost in >>relaying moves, whatsoever. >> > >Rounds start at the scheduled times, not because the operators go shopping. If >the TD wants to compress schedules, he just says this to the operators, and it >happens. > >It's not the operators, but the spectators and the press who want it to start on >scheduled time. Turn on to ICC to view the game of the century on 1100 EST. >Oops! It's already over. > >I have a solution to this: Why not make the *spectators* automatic too :-) >Scrappy(C) can watch the game for you, and you'll be free to do more classes. Let's take this idea to its logical conclusion: why not make the *programmers* automatic too? Actually, why not automate everything? You ask what the humans will do then; no worries, Terminator(C) will take care of that problem :) > >This suggestion mean unmanned, unwatched, un-TD'ed events (i.e. SSDF). Do you >think I want to fly to Austria, have breakfast at the hotel, come to the >tournament hall, and find out that the championship ended overnight ? > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>As far as observing goes, I observed at the first WCCC event. I participated >>>>in the next one in 1977. I missed 80 as it was out of the US and too expensive >>>>to attend. I played in 1983, 1986 and 1989. That's six I personally attended. >>>>Not to mention 20 ACM events that had just as many entries and just as many >>>>problems to handle. The last CCT event went smoothly and quietly... >>> >>>Well, either things have changed or your memory needs refreshing. >> >>I have seen bad decisions made. IE with an automatic interface, Fritz >>would be the current WCCC champion. The draw claim would have been >>handled correctly, the correct result recorded, and a 500-post thread >>would never have happened... >> > >It should have been a draw anyway. But just wait to see the length of the thread >when the championship is decided by two programs misunderstanding each other >while the TD was out shopping. > >Amir > > >> >>> >>>I'm not saying automatic is bad, though it would take some time to stabilize: >>>How to let the TD have the control he needs and what to do when the damn things >>>don't talk to each other, etc. It will work in the end, but since there's no >>>clear benefit, why bother ? >> >>It is just the right way to do things. Humans influence the games, >>intentionally and unintentionally. With no human hands in the mix, the >>games would be computer vs computer as intended. >> >>If a program won't play, it loses. The author fixes it before the next >>round. But with plenty of free chess servers around, there is really no >>excuse in showing up with a program that won't connect and play normally. >> >>> >>>Amir
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.