Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:50:36 12/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2003 at 00:00:25, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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. > > Please tell me how to write this procedure to return a reasonable value: if (BadSportsmanship(current_game)) Resign(current_game); I can only speak for myself, but _my_ computer doesn't understand the concept. Some don't take the time to let their computer resign by itself. They _must_ play on. If the computer itself produces a "I resign" message, then the game should end. And I reserve the right to decide whether I want to enable that working feature in my program. You can always reserve the right to not play against me. :) > > >> >>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.