Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 14:08:49 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.

The very idea of using an absolute score value to force resignation is wrong.
What about programs that count pawns > 1.  IE Deep Blue used 1.28.  So -10
to them is like -8 to me since my pawns are 1.0.  What about programs with
speculative evaluation where the positional scores can reach +/- 5.0 easily?

You simply can't pick some arbitrary point and say "above this is lost".  This
isn't a "one size fits all" chess tournament.  Trying to make it so will only
_increase_ the "issues", not help.

>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.

Why don't they just switch.  These were games played in the tournament
hall.  Can't they just get up, move down 10 chairs, and watch another game?
Do they _have_ to sit there until that game is over before they can move
to another???

On a chess server I choose what I watch, when it gets uninteresting I move on
to another more interesting game.

>
>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.