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.