Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

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.