Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 05:30:27 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 05:08:48, Frank Phillips wrote: >Inbetween all the emotional clap-trap, the argument in your post seems to rest >to a large degree on the assertion that the GUI was not part of the program, >which you conveniently define it is not. I believe it clearly was part of the >program and that therefore the claim of a draw (even though not precisely >formulated, but obvious) was a 'move' that the operator had no right to >over-rule. i do agree here. >Whether or not the human can influence the contest, I suggest they should not to >the extent that they change the result. but this is a philosophical question. Of course the operator has several possibilities to CHANGE the outcome. he can prepare the opening line, change the style, change the time control. ALL (hopefully ONLY) BEFORE the game. but then during the game the operator can e.g. let the program overstep time by making the moves on the real board TOO slow. so this lazy operator syndrom can indeed change the outcome. also he can try to manipulate by NOT moving the computer move (tried by Ossi Weiner) or by playing another move then the program really played (of course this is not allowed !). He can TRY to change the outcome of the game and the tournament by resigning and draw situations. if he has a good contact to the board of the ICCA/ICGA there is a good chance to get advantages out of those manipulating the situation. if he is an unknown amateur, and is only interested in computerchess and not in the people-relations of those events, he has a problem. the lack of relations with the ICCA/ICGA board leads to wrong decisions. >I further suggest that had Shredder been playing many of the other programs, a >draw would have been the result. It obviously had an unfortunate bug, brilliant >program though it undoubtable is. exactly. nobody is against shredder. we all love shredder, we buy it, we like the programmer. we think it is the strongest program in the tournament. but this all is not the question in the specific "problem" in the game. the relation to the programmer and his program should be completely unimportant for the decision. he could have been my brother or my team member and i would have accepted that the outcome of the game would have been a draw when the GUI complains and asks the TD for a draw. it's not about friendship. it is about rules. and not about FIDE rules. because the Fide is not an organisation that directs computerchess-events. the fide is an organisation made for human beeings (and therefore there was no place for assholes like kasparov in the fide, btw :-)). so the rules of the fide need to be adopted and changed by a computerchess organisation to deal with the specific situation in the games.
This page took 0.01 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.