Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 13:59:18 12/11/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 11, 2003 at 16:37:29, Matthew Hull wrote:

>On December 11, 2003 at 16:14:15, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>
>It would be interesting to watch you play in a real tournament.  With your short
>fuse, you would continually be asked the question, "Is that your hair or did
>your head explode?"
>
>
>>
>>
>>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.
>
>Shouldn't that be "shadow"?  Your metaphor is flawed, I think.  (At least you
>didn't call me a vampire.)

I mean both...and yes you are a VAMPIRE, at least a VAMP!
>
>Basic textual interpretation dictates that the meaning of a word is defined by
>the context.  In this you have failed in that the use of this word in the
>dicussion relates to the ignoring of, and abhorrence for, THE RULES.

Bullocks....and you know it! What was I to infer from such stupid sarcasm?!
Certainly not what you stated above! Double Talk is just THAT!
>
>A cheapo only wins if the opponent does not see it.  Yours is a definite loser.
>:)
>
>Nice try, though.

No not a nice try, the truth dunderhead! TILT! YOU LOSE!
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>???????????????????????
>>>>>>>>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.