Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 04:51:43 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 03:52:44, Darse Billings wrote: >As usual in public forums of this kind, a few people are able to >combine knowledge and reason to draw correct conclusions about >the topic at hand. And you decide which conclusions are RIGHT and which conclusions are wrong and weak. May we rename you GOD in the next messages ? > And as usual, their voices are drowned out by >loud and obnoxious people vociferously spewing false information >and illogic. :-)) Illogical Captain Kirk ! >It is comically absurd for someone to say that the operator plays >absolutely no part in the game, the operator should NOT play a part. E.g. the operator should NOT manipulate the outcome of the game, especially NOT when it is one of the favourite programs, and especially not when it is the the final or the round before the final round. If the operators would be allowed to change the outcome of the game in the final rounds, the whole championship would not make much sense. it would be a wish concert , and it would not be sport. it would be the usual manipulative stuff we daily see in all kind of areas ... >There has been some speculation on how the situation should have >been handled, and what I would have done if I was the TD. First, >I wouldn't have been the TD for the WCCC. It is a thankless job, >and no matter how well the job is done there will always be jerks >who complain incessantly, usually holding a ridiculous position. it mustn't be a thankless job. it becomes a thankless job when you do wrong decisions in almost ANY round on almost ALL championships and you are KNOWN for your insane and illogical decisions that change depending on the alcohol amount or the degree or tiredness or some other horomonal problems the TD has in the moment. If you have a weak TD, there will be wrong desisions and then beeing TD is a thankless job. But there are TD's that do wiser decisions and therefore do not generate such an amount of NOISE and problems. The group of people that are normally chosen on ICCA/ICGA championships are lousy TD's. I don't know why. I believe they always choose the wrong guys to do the job because those people WANT to have this job. It is David Levy. Jaap van den Herik. Frederic Friedel. I can name you a list of wrong decisions. I have no idea why those people like to decise depending on how the weather is. Of course there are FIDE rules. Of course there are ICGA/ICCA rules. but those people do not decide on the base of those rules. they decide depending on the mood they are in, depending on the participants involved . if the participant the problem is about, has a low status (amateur, unknown, weak program) it often gets the fucked-decision. if the participant the problem is about has a high status (professional chess programmer, world-champion, known, strong program) the decision is in favour of this programmer or program. the "problems" have nothing to do with the SITUATION. the problems have to do with the people involved ! change the TD with a better one, take other participants and the "problem" can be solved in a wise way. As long as the ICCA/ICGA is directed by a clique of people who do not want to give away the power (they organised to have) to manipulate and "decide" about the events, the participants , etc., nothing about this "problems" will change. >It is easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but no one can say >with absolute certainty how they would have acted at that moment. >It depends on many factors. it is not that the DECISION was done in a second like in soccer. the decision process was long, there were discussions. >Ideally, I would have determined that the 3-fold repetition was >discovered by the GUI, and not by the Jonny program itself. This >*is* relevant, regardless of what some might choose to believe. > >Since neither of those voices claimed a draw in the exact manner >prescribed by the FIDE rules, why do the FIDE rules are important for NON humans ? The FIDE rules tell us something about humans playing chess. this is not the case in the computerchess field. the computerprogram is not a subject. it cannot really make decisions. it is programmed. it is an object. >the decision falls on the operator >(this is normal for computer competitions, and does not make past >draw claims any less valid). but the operator cannot decide if he liked to give 1/2 point to another program or not. if this is allowed, then the whole tournament makes no sense. then the participants could spare the tournament and the time and sit in a bar and make presents : here my friend, i like you and therefore i give you a point. >In this case, the author of Jonny gave a legitimate reason for >continuing the game: that he did not want to score a meaningless >draw after his opponent had earned a completely won position. :-))) so why playing chess. instead you could give your favourite winner all your points in forward. this would be a song-contest and no sports event: an election ! bravo ! lets elect the best chess programs without playing a single move of chess. >I have no intention of debating the issue further. :-))) > The essential >facts are clear, bravo- so why did the TD and the participants accept the wrong decisions when all facts are clear ? > and the decision was justified; from your point of view. > but it is futile >to try to convince those who have closed minds and open mouths. bravo. insulting is always better than discussing. > - Darse.
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.