Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 14:08:26 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 16:59:18, Terry McCracken wrote: >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.... I believe that's supposed to be "bollocks", since "bullocks" makes no sense in the context. Perhaps communicating in English is not your strong suit. >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.