Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 00:32:01 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2003 at 16:59:17, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>My point is: >> >>1. Since the programs now are much stronger than 20 years ago, why not change >>the rule about resigning and let them resing when they are down -10? >>2. It is true that a bug may help the program which is lost, but which are the >>chances today? Is it correct to say 1 every 1000? If this is true, why not >>concentrate to improve their play on the first part of the game rather then >>hoping to be extremely lucky in the endgame? > Hi, first of all thank for the friendly discussion. I undestand your point of view and I do respect it as I do with everybody points of view. Still I do not agree with you...see below. >The point is, even if the eval is -10, I am under no obligation to resign. Correct. I am asking to change the rule to force a program to resign when the score goes down to -10 (a mean more or less a queen and 2 rooks down, to summarize). Why I am asking to change this? Because I think we better try to get closer to mid/strong players and they do resign when the disadvantage is too high. At the lowest national category, so I am not talking at master level, they do resign if they are a piece down, not to talk about a rook down, so why not make the programs get closer to that? -10 is an intermediate level between what is today and what the average chess players do to avoid annoying the people watching these games. It is an idea and a proposal. I think this will improve the view chess players have of computer chess programs. Of course the programmers can say no, but before doing that think about why you are writing a chess program. Do you do it only for fun or you would like more people to get interested on this field and so increase possibly the custormers? >In >fact, I have a very small chance to draw or win. Why should I give up my 0.001 >point? If this will be the new rule it will be the same for everybody. >The burden of proof is on you here, not me. > >>Yes, it is true that they do not get tired, but the people watching these games >>do and they would switch to another game as that is of no interest anymore when >>the advantage is so high. >>This is what I do and I do believe I am not the only one. >>I guess we all want to have more people attracted by chess and chess programs, >>so why not give them something they would prefer? > >I agree - I wouldn't bother watching it, because its really _boring_. But that >is the whole marvel of the thing - they are two computers, let them duke it out. Why we do not try to improve the idea we have on them and try to make them as much as closer to human players we can and add options in that direction? Some years ago I convinced Marty Hirsch to add a learning feature which was a my idea refined by him. He was against at the beginning saying that it is only a chess program after all, so why trying to increse the A.I.? The customers loved that feature and that helped to increase the sells. > If Zappa gets a losing position at CCT6, I'll just observe another game or chat >with the author or do something else. And if I get a winning position, I won't >complain about them playing it out till the end. I know, but this is just a proposal for improvements. Only a proposal. People are complaining that the computer chess market is getting lower and lower. Do they lesson to the customers or not? Now we are in 2003 and we cannot force the customers to get what we are proposing. We need to ask them too. I mean what they would like and so on... I hope I have been clear enough. I leave the decision to you programmers, but do not tell that we (the users) do not give you hints and ideas... > >anthony > >P.S. I'm not attacking Shredder as WCCC03 champion here. I think the TD made >the wrong decision, but that is yesterday's news as far as I'm concerned. I'm >just stating that I think in computer-computer games the usual sportsmanship >related reasons for resigning do not apply. I understand you opinion and as I said I do respect it even if I do not agree. I cannot go against a TD director decision in any case as this is not in my style. This is something I never did and I will never do. Some years ago, I was the operator to M-Chess in a tournament near where I live and we were playing against a Yugoslavian chess player which got a better position, but the program got a 3-fold repetition position. I call the TD and he told me that I made the claim in the wrong way (I moved first and than call the TD), so I could not ask for the draw. It was not important that I did not knew the right procedure... I accepted the TD decision without protesting at all. This is my style and I am proud of it. I hope the people understand. I never criticized anybody. I did with SSDF when they did allow Fritz 5 to be tested using a different version that the one sold (with autoplayer) as this was against the agreements and recently as they were testing a mix of programs as the agreement is to test sold units only. I did not protest when other teams had more than one program or the book author could play with more than one program as this was accepted by the TD. These are only some examples to show you that I am not claiming this only becaue it this case the TD decision favored us, but because this is my style. Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.