Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 10:17:03 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 07:06:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 06:47:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On December 18, 2003 at 05:40:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>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 think I basically disagree on everything you say. >> >>First of all, 'passivity of the operator' is a very vague issue in the way the >>current tournaments are set up. Hyatt has been posting his views already 10000 >>times here but I am sceptic whether they would undeed solve more problems than >>they create. >> >>Basically, I disagree with the reasoning that lead the ICGA to the decision, >>but I disagree with all people that think the decision was unreasonable. >> >>The fact that the Jonny engine did not know about 3 fold repetitions, and >>the draw was claimed by the interface, is IMHO sufficient reason to play on. >>There are a lot of sideissues here like whether interface and engine should >>be considered a whole, but I do not want to get into them as they are very >>difficult discussions in their own. >>Note that I do not say I would take the same decision. I think the decision >>is defensible - that's another thing. >> >>>It is called "mass" suggestion or hypnosis through the self-confidence and >>>presentation of a good chessplayer >> >>I think this is nonsense, believe me, Mr. Zwanzger was all but confident >>after the discussions started. >> >>It it very easy to criticise the decision on hindsight, but do not forget that >>at the time of the inital decision not all the facts were known that are known >>now. >> >>I can assure you that I would be very highly surprised if one of the >>programmers, even the ones disadvtanged, think in a negative manner of Mr. >>Zwanzger. >> >>I consider Shredder to be the double world champion. If the Fritz team >>disagrees, they should have appealed the decision, and the eventual outcome >>would have been dependent on the committee of appeal, which did not have ICGA >>staff in it, but participants. >> >>But they did not, so they though the ICGA decision was acceptable as well. > >I also consider Shredder to be the double world champion but I consider the >decision to give it the championship to be wrong decision. > >It is similiar to the case of kasparov-polgar when kasparov won the game by >unfair means when his hand left the knight in the wrong square. > >It is not a win that kasparov can be proud of it and kasparov did wrong when he >tried to correct the move that he did in an illegal way instead of admitting his >error and let the error be played. > >It is more easy to tell other what they should do instead of doing the right >thing and I remember a case in my history when I did the same thing in a blitz >game because I did not want to make a stupid blunder(the opponent did not >complain in my case) but the point is that you cannot be proud about such >behaviour and you cannot claim that you did the right thing. > >Uri Oh, Please! This is so absurd. It's true, Kasparov inadvertantly, (for about a quarter of a second), _touched_ the _wrong_ square with his Knight, and Judit Polgar _could_ have _held_ Kasparov to it, but she _didn't_ as she wanted to win by _her_ own _merits_, something that seems to be _lost_ on so many people! TM
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.