Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:00:20 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 13:50:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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?" Sandro meant "unexpected" 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. I can only add this: I got email from Sandro too who tried to "convince" that - for sure, I could believe him - Hyatt were wrong! So, it could well be that the secret about "hundred" emails "asking" is not yet been told. As far as I'm concerned I know for sure that FRITZ is the true Wch 2003 and SHREDDER is the title winner after all rules had been broken. It is interesting who is defending that. A) Darse who is speaking pro ICGA officials B) Sandro who is speaking pro domo (as a member of the SHREDDER team, as their book author) On RGCC I have discussed the matter with a member of the Maastricht University, a "collegue" of J. vd Herik. All his arguments could be refutated by myself and in special Bob Hyatt. After I had written the tiny idea that perhaps he could be Jaap himself, the contact had been broken... Fact ~~~~ Neither someone from ICGA officially posted to CCC what were the defenses of the false decisions in Graz. Nor any programmer appeared who defended the decisions around the SHREDDER scandal. Amir Ban thankfully wrote his already published position that the decision of the TD board was wrong doen to the bones. That was published before on the ChessBase [!] webpages. Only - Amir never explained because he didn't appeal to the board. Perhaps the secret here lies in the next tournament in Israel 2004. Whatever - I have a weak English education but what I could understand with my weak English was never something that could be taken for a defense of TD board's decision. All I could read was something from Sandro who basically tried to ignore the status of Bob Hyatt and his legendary successes in many tournaments in the history of computerchess. I can only agree with Bob who shows astonishment in face of the rather strange boasting of a side who should take the responsibility for their "bug" but who instead argues as if they were the justified title winner - with a bug, haha. Of course this is a totally strange and outlandish position. Bob Hyatt gives another elaborated example from another sport. Moral ~~~~~ The strangeness of the whole debate is existent because ethically it is a nono per se to claim something as justified that was only accorded due to scandalous decisions. So one could speak of winning by chance or some such, but the position of ethical superiority is the falsest one could obtain. And that remains also true if we consider that in many other respects SHREDDER is really a very strong program. But - such an event is not designed to proclaim the 'really' strongest program but the winner in a fair competition. However then, if the latter would be true, how could SHREDDER be the fair winner if it came into the tie only after Jonny operator Zwanzger threw intentionally a game to support SHREDDER??? Since when is throwing a game a decent behaviour in sports? Rolf > > >> >>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.