Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:30:23 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 19:14:26, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 13:59:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 18, 2003 at 13:17:03, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>No >> >>Mistakes are part of the game and rules should be respected. >>Even if you planned to play the right move what count is what you did. >> >>The story that I read is different. >> >>I remember that I read that judit asked kasparov to play because he left the >>piece but kasparov denied that he left. >> >>Judit did not continue to complain during the game but the reason is probably >>different than the reason that you give. >> >>Maybe she was not 100% sure that she saw correctly and did not want to generate >>problems and maybe she thought that it is not going to help her because with no >>witness the rules assume that kasparov is right. >> >>Uri > > >No? Well I happen to _know_ differently, and Yes, the reason I gave was the >correct one! > >Kasparov was _caught_ on _video_ and there was no error on Judit's part, she >didn't want to win that way, plain and simple. > >This is somewhat analogous to Jonny and Shredder, which was my point, "The >Etched In Stone" rule notwhithstanding. > >*Yawn* I would want to be the last person on Earth to be labeled a "rules worshipper." Nevertheless, one cannot escape the obvious fact that a game consists of a set of rules which everybody agrees to "play" by. Tournaments are like games in that sense. When someone enters a tournament, they agree to abide by a set of tournament rules. People who do not are held in contempt [or at least chided with mild rebuke] by the other "players" and called a "cheater." Technically, a "cheater" is merely someone who didn't follow the agreed-upon rules of the game being played. I have watched small children play. Sometimes they make up games "on the spot." They create rules "on the fly" as new situations come up needing new rules. Sometimes rules are negotiated. Sometimes rules are changed in the middle of the game. Believe it or not, I too was once a child. I, too, made up and played games with others in a group. Playing games [and playing in tournaments] is fun and that's why games [and tournaments] are so popular. The people at Graz were there for their own reasons [which we may never know] but I suspect that they were there in large measure for entertainment. It was a social gathering, or a back-scratching event. Perhaps the commercial engine guys were there for the grubby money aspect, but if so that would be their loss. Perhaps chess programmers hold chess programs and "silicon" tournaments in more awe than they should. Perhaps these things should not be taken so seriously, after all. In the final analysis, we are only talking about harmless GAMES, . . . FCOL. [Let's see you figure out "FCOL." : ) *Yawn* : ) Bob D.
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.