Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:40:59 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 04:51:54, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 04:45:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>How about taking weaker hardware and improving its exploitation? > >Always an option :) Maybe next tournament I bring a laptop and hope >my luck turns :)) > >>Also, was nobody aware of what happened in the game between Jonny and Shredder? >>And later, was there nobody, like the experienced chessplayer VD, who could >have corrected the false views of the TD board? > >I will write about this is my article, but basically, in the actual >tournament people were much more relaxed about the TD decisions than on >CCC :) > >Do not forget that Mr. Zwanzger was a very strong and experienced chessplayer >himself (higher rated than Vincent I believe). He did what he thought was right, >the other players somewhat disagreed but understood the decision, and the >internet audience instantly wanted his head :) > >-- >GCP Yes, thanks for the information so far but you were an operator too. Didn't you know the neccessity of the operator's passivity as it was defined by Bob Hyatt? It is NOT a question of human chess so that the concrete strength as a human chessplayer is not so important as the knowledge of the naked rules in computerchess. It was a 3-fold perpetual and hence it should have been ended in a draw by definition. Psychologically I can well understand the motivation of JZ but in computerchess he made a big mistake. But I can also understand what you mean as a member of the community in that tournament. It is called "mass" suggestion or hypnosis through the self-confidence and presentation of a good chessplayer. But as Bob pointed out, the rules are more important than such human incidents. - However the TD could have healed the Zwanzger mistake according to the - yes, the rules. He should have ordered the taking back of the further moves after the perpetual. Then Z. would have his status untouched as a fair sportsman in chess but as a "newcomer" in computerchess. Nobody would have thought in a negative manner about him. Now it's a fact that he spoilt the outcome of the whole event with his immature [computerchess rules!] behaviour. In that regard I would have hoped that you collegues would have interferred and helped to correct the case. I hope some of my thoughts could further increase the output of your coming report. Somehow you made a good decision in delaying the publication. Please bare in mind how it looks if you would defend a clear violation of the rules. Also a TD's decision doesn't stand if it can be proved that such a violation existed. No matter if the TD was good enough informed. A rule cannot be overjudged. In CC a three-fold repetition is a draw, if it's on the display somehow and on the board in special. Period. But just to mention the other proble3m we had as observers. Why could you tolerate that a collegue was banned for the final three rounds when the suspicion against the program was already known before the start of the tournament? This is another strange case to discuss. It would be well respected if you wouldn't join any kind of bashing party against FR. As long as nothing can be said for sure. But excuse my somewhat unwanted advice. Rolf
This page took 0.02 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.