Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 13:14:15 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 15:52:33, Matthew Hull wrote: >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. "Crooktables" is more like it! And you have the gall to accuse me of this!? Matthew Hull: "Antinomianism is what stinks." Main Entry: an·ti·no·mi·an Pronunciation: "an-ti-'nO-mE-&n Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin antinomus, from Latin anti- + Greek nomos law Date: 1645 1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation 2 : one who rejects a socially established morality - antinomian adjective - an·ti·no·mi·an·ism /-mE-&-"ni-z&m/ noun It appears you cast a heavy reflection, don't look too closely. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>??????????????????????? >>>>>>I will never understand this! >>>>>> >>>>>>Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.