Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:50:14 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 01:54:32, Sandro Necchi wrote: >Robert, > >you keep telling this story. You simply are ridicolous on this matter. I'm not sure what "ridicolous" means. But regardless of the definition, at least I am not hiding my head in the sand. The rules _were_ broken, and the game _should_ have been drawn because you had a serious bug, and had that happened, Fritz would have (and should have) won. Period. > >I have made further checks with several people involved in chess tournaments for >several years and you are one of the very few which think what happened was not >allowed. That is utter baloney and you know it. Look at _all_ the posters here that have been involved in computer chess for years, and _none_ of them thought that what happened was reasonable. In fact, you are the only one I have seen here (besides the rather lame post by Darse) that claims that what happened was OK. And I do mean I have seen _nobody_ defend the TD's decision that was, and is, and always will be _wrong_. > >Are they all wrong or you are wrong? They = 1-2 people. "me" = _many_ people. Find your allies and name 'em. > >To me you are wrong and you cannot change this no matter how many posts you >write. > >Full story finished. > >I am relieble because an inespected bug can happen, this does not change the >meaning of my statements. Look the final standing. I hope you are at least able >to admit this. What is an "inspected bug?" But it really doesn't matter. You had a bug. The bug should have cost you the draw, but the TD let the other operator violate both the written rules and the spirit of the computer chess event. > >People here continuo talk about bugs and things like that. They do not analize >the games and try to understand things. You are not exception. You had a bug. I've had bugs and lost drawn games, and drawn won games. It happens, and _I_ didn't whine about it, nor did I suggest that my opponent would have been right to take an action to hide the effect of _my_ bug. > >Look how much the best programs score at the event and think why. > And the point would be? This is about 11 specific games, played at one specific event. Would you prefer that everyone play 11 rounds, then vote on the winner? Then design an event to be run like that. The ICGA event is a _tournament_. where wins losses and draws _count_. Not quality. Not pleasing style. But wins draws and losses _only_. What is wrong with you that you don't understand that simple fact? This was not a beauty pageant where judges vote for the ultimate winner. This was a football game. If you have outplayed your opponent by gaining 600 yards to -40, and are ahead 6-0 and in the last second you fumble and your opponent runs it back for a TD, sorry friend but _you lose_. To suggest that "hey we outplayed them all over the field, we had way more yardage, way more first downs, we are the moral winners." is OK to say, but it does _not_ get you to the next round of the playoffs. What you are suggesting is the classic example of "ridiculous reasoning". >Do not stuck on a silly matters just to try to disquilify other people. By doing >so you only disqualify yourself. Want to run that one by me again? I simply want to see the _right thing_ dones in these events. In this case, that was _not_ what happened. > >People are not fool, they do understand. > >I have received more than a hundred e-mails asking me to come back and tell true >things. To compensate who tells stories. Just think to whom they were >referring... Perhaps yourself. _I_ have not told _any_ "stories". I have read exactly what happened, as relayed by the ICGA, by Amir, and others that were present. The actions were wrong. There's not much more to say. > >Sorry, but you'll have to live with that. Yes, it seems so. It also seems that you are quite willing to live with a completely undeserved title. Which says a lot about you as well. I want to win the _right_ way or not at all. You ought to try that and think about it. It feels _much_ better. > >Anyway, instead of arguing, which you know how to do so well, came to the next >WCCC and show I am wrong. > >Try to show things instead of just saying them. Try to understand things instead of just repeating nonsense... > >Sandro
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.