Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:41:09 12/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2003 at 13:37:19, Mike S. wrote:
>On December 24, 2003 at 07:02:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>>>(...)
>
>>You take the arguments following your actual needs. (...)
>
>>Your personal interest in mind I can well understand why you defend the
>>decisions in Graz because commercially (...)
>
>You manage to insult people on Dec. 24th.
Mike, I'm so sorry, but what I wrote was not an insult! Please!
The snip of your message here is an insult to me however! It implies as if I had
combined _you_ with commercial interest - this is FALSE! I did not do that. The
meaning of what I wrote was this:
For years now I read your messages and always they contain - among other things,
good things as I've said more than once - explanations or justifications which
defend a practice or a behaviour of either ChessBase or CSS, that is Computer
Schach & Spiele. I know this because I was - more than once - your
correspondent. I stood on the critic side while you stood on the defense side.
This is not offensive or insultive to state.
So - in the meantime I called you a (so called) spin doctor. In German we would
say 'Ideologe', that is someone who * defines and then * explains or * defends
certain interests or realities to ** exchange or ** support or ** substantiate
the ideas, perceptions and realities of a certain group of people.
I did NOT say that you have commercial interests. On the contrary. You have
ideological interests. But ChessBase has commercial interests for its different
products, and it's a truth that FRITZ has been in the PR loop since Bahrain
(against Kramnik) and New York (Kasparov). JUNIOR was also in the PR loop in New
York (the usual Kasparov again) and he was the last Wch. The one without actual
loop was SHREDDER. So my idea was that commercial interest should have been that
SHREDDER became Wch in Graz at least.
Now Bob Hyatt wrote that he's not interested in the 'why' of the mess of the TD
false decision in the Jonny operator case. But Bob wrote that he can't see any
reason at all. My point was that I see a reason. A commercial reason.
NB all in the context of a real niche business for testers and their friends in
the field. Stefan Meyer-Kahlen is the programmer of the commercial 'POCKET
FRITZ' [sic!] and not a POCKET "SHREDDER". So far about the commercial
embeddement of FRITZ and SHREDDER.
****
>
>I don't have any "needs" or "personal interest" regarding this. I gain nothing
>and I loose nothing, no matter how these things are decided or how the sales
>figures of Shredder or Fritz looks like.
It is insultive to insinuate as if I had said different.
>
>I'm an not an experienced participant of computer chess championships, but have
>expressed my honest opinions from my viewpoint. I don't demand that everybody
>must share my opinion, but I demand that everyboday accepts that this was really
>my honest view of it. Maybe it isn't based on so much information as it would be
>desireable (i.e., I don't even find any detailed ICGA tournament rules on their
>homepage).
Where did I doubt the honesty of your messages. Ideologists aren't dishonest!
>
>Basically my opinion about that was based upon the fact, that
>
>"3-fold repetion"
>
>is different from
>
>"I claim a draw by 3-fold repetition"
This is WRONG, Mike!
That is because you doubt the direct combination of machine and operator who
does what the machines "says". As Prof. Hyatt told you and all others, a 3-fold
information by the machine, engine or GUI, says that the operator claims a draw.
In the proper way. 1) stopping clocks 2) informing TD about the next move 3)
only on order of the TD moving the next move.
That is also because you fantasize that a machine has an ego or personality. But
the ego, the passive ego, is the operator. Passive because he acts only in
order. Following the rules. Now a "3-fold" is always a draw. It always was.
Different to human chess the operator can't say that he doesn't want the draw
but that he prefers to lose the lost position. That is exactly what I personally
call cheating. Because, Mike, a human player does not necessarily cheat if he
overlooks the repetition and plays on and then loses. But a machine doesn't
overlook a 3-fold! So the operator - as a passive member - cant play his own
mean games because the neglecting of the machine's info is a cheat. I know for
sure that you don't defend cheating.
>
>If you refuse to take notice that these 2 sentences which may appaear in program
>messages, have different meanings, than it's you leaves the honest part of the
>discussion. That the tradition, and an (I guess unwritten) rule in computerchess
>competitions says that these mean the same,
NOPE Mike! That a 3-fold, once you notice it, is a draw, this is NOT something
special for computerchess, but for human chess and from there it was taken to
computerchess.
And I beg you to correct this nonsense that I would leave the honest debate if I
doubt that the two sentences or better expressions above are different. They
have the same meaning indeed. Because the moment a machine or human player
discovered a 3-fold, at the same moment the draw is there - AFTER correct
inclusion of the TD!
>is obviously not optimal and has to
>be put more precisely into rules and program's message text.
>
>You understand that there are repetitions which the operator should be
>*informed* about, but where it makes no sense to claim (because i.e. the
>opponent forced it to his advantage, and I'd be winning otherwise)? How do you
>*distinguish* then, info or claim??
Now this is a completely new idea. :))
You imply that a machine, say Jonny, has the better position and it then plays
for a 3-fold??? Jonny is better and then _allowing_ a 3-fold, that the opponent
SHREDDER has managed? Because Shredder did it to his advantage because his
position was worse??? And your question is if Jonny then should be forced to
accept a draw if it pops up with the info (like in Graz)?
This is complete nonsense! Because Jonny _then_ if he were better he wouldn't
have played for a 3-fold! But _if_ he played for it then we would now call it
the same bug as in Shredder's case. _But_ in both cases the game _is_ a draw
after it was a 3-fold in the display!!!!
Moral Number 1:
A machine, that overlooks (unlike normaly machines do) a 3-fold in a better
position, has deserved to draw instead of winning. The game is a draw. This is
not a bug but we call it an educational lesson!
Moral Number 2:
A machine, which has the worse position and rightfully pops up with the info
"3-fold", has cleverly managed to draw the game and its operator is forbidden to
cheat and _continue_ the (lost) game instrad of drawing it. In special in case
of a lost game the cheat is extremely clear. If not, see moral number 3.
Moral Number 3:
Writers who imply that it is justified that the party with the worse position
should NOT claim a draw in case of a 3-fold must repeat classes and enter the
special lecture of Geheimrat Rolf about logic and chess history. The loop
remains until writers admit that they were absolutely wrong in their perception.
As a last signal of remorse all writers in the end apologize for their faults.
Otherwise they re-enter the lecture of our Geheimrat... [ad infinitum]
Historical Note:
Geheimrat = Councilor
:)
>
>Btw. I'm not at all interested in defending ICGA decisions either. I've even
>harshly critized the List disqualification. I believe that after such a scandal
>of incompetently misused organisation power, the official staff should retire.
>So much about my "defense" of ICGA.
Thanks so far, Mike. Honestly I do see the List case with your eyes. I can feel
compassion with the List author Fritz Reul who had such a scandal during his
examinations. Until now Fritz never was peoven guilty. But he was treated in the
most deminoring way.
Although the ICGA had offered a clarification AFTER the tournament they STILL
banned Fritz after he didn't cooperate or better communicate due to his
examinations. This means that Fritz - if he would have been interested in a
cheat - could well have agreed in a later clarification.
Apparently we are the two only ones who see that such a stress can well create a
seemingly irrational behavior. But what is now in case if Fritz is innocent???
Why was he banned for the three final rounds in Graz? What is with his good
name? He would have been hurt just because Fritz was unable to "act naturally"
during the stress of his examinations...!
BTW I find it extremely sympathetic that in special Chr. Liebert from CSS has
defended the LIST author with so much energy.
I can only hope that Fritz gets a fair compensation if it should be proven that
the reproaches against his engine were false. Here: couldn't be proven at all.
Also I find that the lack of solidarity by all the other programmers is crying
loud to Heaven!
All the best to you, Mike, and enjoyable holidays and a Happy New Year,
Rolf
>
>I hope the NACCA can give a better example of how to handle all that.
>
>Regards,
>M.Scheidl
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.