Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:44:38 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 15:38:26, Sandro Necchi 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? >> > >OK, it is clear: I am a chess player and you are a programmer which makes also >programs that are suppose to play chess. I mean they do until the score is >reasonable and play until the end like a child will. I see no problem. Humans are not playing. Computers don't get tired. So let 'em play to force the winning side to show it can actually win the won game. >To me the last part is not chess at all as there is no interest to find good >moves, but only avoid mistakes. >Chess is strategy, fantasy, good evaluation and tactics. >When the game is strategically won, and the material gain is so high is simply >boring or technique to win it. >Not interesting at all... Unless a program has bugs. A good program with a bad bug does _not_ necessarily deserve to win just because it is good. > >I am sorry, but if you insist on claiming the opposite, then you are not a chess >player, but a PIECES MOVERS maybe like your program... I've been playing chess since I was about 10. That makes 45 years. I want to get better, but in tournaments I want to win. Have you _never_ seen two GM players where one is a rook down, the other has his clock flag hanging on the edge, and the GM a rook down is moving instantly trying to make his opponent (who is ahead by the way) drop his flag or make a blunder and lose? And that is bad sportsmanship??? IE it seems like lots of players go for wins at all costs. Certainly every chess player I have known... >I am not intendind to offend you, but to understand this is what makes a chess >player and a pieces movers... I'll be sure to tell GM Browne and Diesen that you think they are "piece movers". :) They have put on some interesting exhibitions in tournaments dealing with time trouble.. > >>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. > >I am not talking about injustice. I am talking about a fight. Do you think there >is a fight if the American indians would be facing U.S. Army today instead of >Custer's...would you called a fight and a win to be proud of? yes I would. A Chess game is played on multiple levels. The pieces on the board are just one aspect. We have a clock we have to manage, and that is just as important as the board. You can lose "won positions" with poor time management. >Pls. do not always refer to Shredder...I am talking about future tournament to >make them better and more people fun of them... I have absolutely nothing bad to say about Shredder. Nor its primary author. This was just a lousy action by your opponent, compounded by a lousy decision by the TD. > >Pls. try to understand the chess players too and not only the programmers like >you. I am both, as I said... > > >> 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 would state would be killed correctly if the opponents do not have >bugs...unfortunately the humans players will not have bugs and would never buy >such weak program. >Do you really think such a program can teach something to any human playes? >OK, maybe to lose correctly or to be mate correctly? We are way off the beaten path. This is about a chess tournament, with a pool of players (programs) and the authors. They are in a tournament, which measures success _only_ in terms of wins and losses and draws. Good play, bad play, stupid play, brilliant play, all are nice, but none affect the final result more than the outcome of each game. Which means that the outcome is the most important part of a game, and it _must_ be treated carefully to preserve the correct overall result. Else don't play in tournaments... > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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. > >I am saying let's them resign on their own when they reach -10 like the >commercial programs do. I believe I had the first automatic resigning program around. It dates back to 1976. It also accepted draws automatically and all by itself, as well as offered draws. Crafty has continued that tradition. Against a GM, Crafty resigns pretty quickly, against an IM a little less quickly, and against lower ranked players it delays resigning even longer since they are more likely to make a mistake and lose anyway. Against a computer, I _never_ resign (I am talking about Crafty in first person here), because I have seen Crafty lose games it was winning, and I want to make sure it won't win a game it is losing because of an opponent bug. If you want to resign, that's up to you. I resign against GM players as they appreciate it and play more games. Computers don't appreciate anything and therefore I play on... > >>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. > >Is it so difficult to understand that me, being a chess player would like to buy >a chess program that can help me to improve my chess skill and not teach me to >lose correctly? That's simply wrong. You have problems playing chess. The computer punishes you. The computer misses a 3-fold repetition and lets you escape, that is just your good fortune. Of course, the best bet is to use that loss as a learning aid and _fix_ the bug... I have had a parallel draw bug many times. I fixed it. I drew won games because of the bug. That gave me even more incentive to fix it. I'd hardly complain because my opponent should have resigned before my program screwed up and clutched a draw from the jaws of victory. I want to take every action _I_ can take to ensure that I win when I should, by fixing all bugs. I don't want to depend on my opponent resigning before some problem crops up and costs me 1/2 point. IE I want my future in _my_ hands, not in my opponent's... > >>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. > >That's the difference between me and you. If I see the game is lost. I am a >piece down or see my position hopeless I shake the hand of my opponent and I >resign. You are an oddball then. As I have said, I have seen _many_ "time scrambles" where one player tries to run the other's clock down, even though the one in time trouble is actually winning OTB. That is just a part of chess. Just because you win a rook, doesn't mean you deserve to win the game, if you spend too much time on the tactics to win the rook, and then don't have enough time to win the game. >I do not want to be "insulted" to have been forcing someone to play "ridiculus" >and hoping for "miracles" to gain Elo improvements. I suggest you avoid all human tournament play. You might be surprised to see that if you show up one hour late for a game, you have lost one hour on your clock, whether you had a valid reason or not. :) Humans are pretty sticky about following rules... >If I lose the game I do not deserve the right to get a better Elo. And how could you? You have to win for your rating to go up. Whether you win or your opponent loses is hardly the issue. If your opponent hangs a rook, do you claim the win or do you stop and say "hey, you had a better position until your blunder, I'll offer you a draw." That is no different than being ahead and blundering, as happened in the Jonny game. >It is like to have the homework made by someone else and get a good job due to >this. >I do not learn, how can I hope to be able to do my job correctly. >This to me is cheating. It can't possibly be cheating when _you_ don't do anything wrong. Your opponent simply screws up and loses, or draws a won ending. _you_ did nothing but have a present dropped in your lap.. that is hardly "cheating" as "cheating" means "doing something contrary to existing rules of play." I saw no rule broken by you. I saw a rule broken by your opponent when he failed to claim the draw when instructed to by the program. You were on the receiving end of a bit of good luck, which happens. You got 1/2 point more than you should have. But only because your opponent broke the rules. That is the part I am unhappy about, that the TD let the broken rule go ignored... > >Pls. stop to refer to Shredder, I am talking about future tournaments. > >Pls. make them better in order to increase the people watching them and avoid >chess players to laugh about chess programs... That is something each _author_ has to do. If it didn't happen in this event, it _would_ have happened to many people when the program was shipped with an unknown bug. Which would be worse? > >>If I win on time, >>I simply used my time better, and time _is_ a part of the game. > >This is something else. The use of time is part of the game. > >> >>Tournaments are about results, nothing else. > >OK, but there is a limit to that and a ethic too. > >Pls. avoid referring to Shredder. I was not in Graz, I did not decide anything. >I only told my opinion on this matter as you did. I never contested any TD. If >the opponent is stronger than me I am the first one to congratulate and to shake >his hand. >If he wins in a non moral way, I will not as I would prefer to lose than to do >the same. I will not play my best against a child. It is better to have him >getting fun of chess rather than being proud of winning against a child...I >really do not understand how one could be proud of it... >This is my style. Like it or not. >> My style is "to follow _all_ rules." If I can show a bit of sportsmanship without violating the spirit of the rules, I will. For example, at a past ACM event John Stanback had a program problem and used his two 15-minute time-outs. We were in a winnable rook and pawn ending, but I was not sure we could win it. John thought he could fix his bug if he could restore an older version and play on. I said "suits me, I'd like to see if we can win this" so we kept the clock stopped longer than the rules technically allowed. we went on to win anyway so all we did was waste two hours, by playing beyond when his flag would have fallen. So I have bent rules before. But never to the point of overriding what my program wanted to play or claim. And I would never do that. But within the framework of the spirit of the rules, I try to be fair... And when a TD makes a boneheaded decision, I'm not above pointing out just how boneheaded it was. :)
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.