Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 14:19:00 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 17:06:36, Terry McCracken wrote: >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?" > >I was always a gracious player, but you I would not play, and never played the >lower spectrum of players. You can't always avoid that. In the Tulsa Open and the OK State Championship, my rating put me about in the median of the field. So first round, I usually got paired with a 2000 player. One time I got paired with the top rated player (2265 USCF). He wiped me off the board with the Kings Gambit. One time Paul Kuroda (~2435) came to OK and played (there were Grand Prix points). I narrowly missed being paired with him. >The net unfortunately is filled with them! >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>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.