Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:05:24 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 21:47:30, Terry McCracken wrote: >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 Amazing! You win the $50 prize. Please come to the South Pole to collect. : ) 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.