Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 21:00:25 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 22:44:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. In an automated computer event, I will definitely set my program to never resign. But when you operate your program, i.e., dealing with humans, that's a different story. I would find it rude of myself to continue the game when my program is at -8 with absolutely no chance, apart from bugs in the other program. > > >>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??? No. When your opponent is in time trouble, you have realistic chances to not lose the game. But when you are a queen down, and your opponent has plently of time on his clock, it _is_ bad sportsmanship to continue the game. > >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.