Author: Amir Ban
Date: 02:35:56 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 04:10:02, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 17:49:47, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On December 13, 2003 at 07:32:04, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 2003 at 05:24:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On December 13, 2003 at 03:32:01, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>> >>>>>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). >>>> >>>>The problem is that with the new rule programmers have no problem to change >>>>their evaluation and never show a score of more than -9.999 pawns against >>>>themselves even in case of mate. >>> >>>Ok, this should be verified with a secret position before the tournament start. >>>If a programmer is found as cheating, than unless he can demostrate it is due to >>>a bug for that specific position it will be disqualified. >>> >>>> >>>>It is easy to do it for me by dividing all scores by 10 so 99.99 that is mate in >>>>one today becomes 9.999 >>>> >>>>The only way to implement it correctly is if an external program does the >>>>evaluation. >>> >>>Maybe. Mine is a proposal. Maybe there is a better idea to handle this. > >Hi, >>> >> >>In WCCC 2001 Shredder lost a game to Junior where it was showing +6 at some >>point. > >I know it very well. > >> >>The rule at WCCC is that the TD must allow resignation or agreed draws. E.g. the >>draw Junior-Fritz was already agreed several moves back, but the TD wanted to >>see the rooks off before giving consent. I think that Jonny was not allowed to >>resign, and rightly so. In the critical phase of the game black had mate threats >>of its own, and with the sort of bugs Shredder was suffering, even a loss was >>not inconceivable. >> >>It was noted by several after that game that given that operators are not >>allowed to resign or draw when they want to, it's ridiculous to allow them to >>lose deliberately. > >Amir that is all close and past now. >I am making proposals for the next tournament to make thinks more clear to >everybody. I think that what turned out did show that things were not fully >clear as there were too many different opinions. I do not agree with your >opinion, but I respect it. > >My proposal is: > >1. Let's change the rule (when the tournaments have live games; when there are >people looking them other than those in the hall) to force all programs to >resign when they are at -10 or lower. >2. Since the chances that these games turned our to be a draw or change the >outcome are nearly 0, let's avoid showing parts of games which are not played in >human tournaments and not interested from a chess point of view. I think -10 is >a good value to avoid maybe 1 game out of 1000 to change the outcome. > >Of course without cheating... > >P.N. The bug in Shredder has been fixed since several days, so my proposal has >nothing to do with Shredder. > >The reason of the proposal is that people watching these games are continuosly >saying why program x is not resigning and switching to other games as that part >of the game is not important at all. > I agree with this part. The problem however is the reverse: the programs are just too damn smart for ordinary people. They will say -8 based on a deep continuation and resign, leaving many viewers mystified. Homework for you boys and girls: why did program X resign ? How many can see the mate in Shredder-Jonny ? Or, viewing the position and seeing that black has mate-in-one threats, even conclude that white is winning ? The first report I got after the reptition was from a kibitzer who said excitedly: "Shredder is now losing", which turned out to be a gross exaggeration. The TD's are mindful of this and want to see games played until the t's are crossed and i's dotted. Amir >This is just a proposal. >If you programmers do not agree, then forget it. > >P.N. I like the way your program play. I find it fun! > >>Amir > >Sandro
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.