Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

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.