Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy -- rebuttal

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:34:46 12/21/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 21, 2003 at 14:59:39, George Sobala wrote:

>On December 21, 2003 at 14:41:03, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On December 21, 2003 at 14:22:07, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>
>>>On December 21, 2003 at 14:14:46, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 21, 2003 at 14:04:46, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 21, 2003 at 13:17:48, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On December 21, 2003 at 10:18:36, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On December 21, 2003 at 03:52:44, Darse Billings wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have read the hundreds of replies in this thread.  I don't read
>>>>>>>>this forum regularly, and I do not wish to spark more pointless
>>>>>>>>discussion (though it is likely inevitable).  Nevertheless, many
>>>>>>>>things have been said that are simply wrong, so I will try once
>>>>>>>>more to clarify some of the points of contention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We heard your point of view and your point of view is in the minority and is
>>>>>>>direct contradiction to "fair play" as most people know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then none of you have any idea whatsoever what fair play is. This comes as no
>>>>>>surprise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><big snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have no intention of debating the issue further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bravo!  We already went through this once, we will now have a another hundred
>>>>>>>line thread on this issue .  I think most people have already moved on and I'm
>>>>>>>glad to see you are moving on as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, he read a hundred rants from rash posters at CCC and is now responding, with
>>>>>>intelligence, which is sorely lacking at CCC!
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry Terry - there was no reason for his post other than vent.  IMO, hi missed
>>>>>the boat on this issue and apparantly many others agree.  That's ok - nobody
>>>>>gets it right all the time.  He should have quit while he was ahead.
>>>>
>>>>Who says he isn't ahead...(not that he's out trying to win converts), he simply
>>>>"laid the cards on the table" and you've proven him right, as the CCC, with
>>>>their snobbish replies.
>>>>
>>>>At least I took time to _read_ his _entire_ post. ANY insults he dished out were
>>>>well desevered!
>>>
>>>I read his entire post and I simply do agree with his reasoning.  You happen to
>>>agree with him, that is your right.  I could care less about his insults - he is
>>>obviously emotionally attached to his line of thinking and I think that is
>>>clouding his judgement here.
>>
>>
>>do agree?;-)
>>
>>Regardless, that is the point, and everyone has been guilty in varying degrees,
>>over the Graz issue, and _not_ just Darse Billings.
>>
>>If you're very honest about it you'll see he indeed has a very logical
>>arguement, but no one wants to listen. He's not infallible, but niether are the
>>members of CCC. Not me, not you, none of us.
>>
>>Best,
>> Terry
>
>I agree Terry. There is an awful lot of entrenched opinion on both sides
>expressing itself as insults. My view is that (a) at Graz the TD made the
>correct decision within the rules as they existed, and (b) the rules should be
>changed for the next tournament. I doubt that many disagree with (b) but a lot
>seem to wish to change history.


I am missing something.  _how_ can the rules be any clearer?  The rule that
enumerates the operator's responsiblities is quite clear.  He makes moves.
He inputs moves when the opponent moves.  He can tell the program how much
time is left on the clock.  And that is _all_ he can do.  Do you see _any_
rule that gives the operator the ability to override the program's selected
move choice?  (no).  Do you see _any_ rule that gives the operator the ability
to ignore when the program claims a draw?  (no).  Do you see any rule that
says that if the operator wants to offer a draw or resign (himself, not the
computer program) that he _must_ ask the TD first?  (yes)

I don't see how more rules would help.  Just proper interpretation and
enforcement of existing rules would suffice just fine, IMHO.




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.