Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:47:30 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 21:30:23, Bob Durrett wrote: >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. For Crying Out Loud
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.