Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 04:50:38 05/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2004 at 06:51:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 24, 2004 at 01:33:56, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On May 23, 2004 at 20:13:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On May 23, 2004 at 08:23:04, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On May 23, 2004 at 07:58:44, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 23, 2004 at 05:03:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 23, 2004 at 03:44:58, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 23, 2004 at 03:25:11, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 23, 2004 at 01:52:24, Derek Paquette wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 22, 2004 at 23:11:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On May 22, 2004 at 22:33:58, Derek Paquette wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Hi, i just took a look at the WCCC2004 page and to my surprise Crafty is not in >>>>>>>>>>>it, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>is the page just not being updated properly? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If it is just slow and delayed I have a few questions for Bob, >>>>>>>>>>>what Crafty version is going to be used and on what hardware? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Most recent version, always. Hardware is unknown. I am trying for a 4-way or >>>>>>>>>>8-way 2.4ghz opteron as a worst-case, maybe something even better. But it is >>>>>>>>>>late to really look for good hardware. Whether it will work out or not is >>>>>>>>>>unknown... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In some previous posts you were talking about 'perhaps' increasing Crafty's >>>>>>>>>>>strength and you might be making leaps and bounds with its performance (your >>>>>>>>>>>also waiting for a new box to come in i 'believe') >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes... we are going to work on a cluster-crafty this summer. Got a Ph.D. >>>>>>>>>>student interested so we are going to jump in starting in June... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I use crafty 19.12 on chessanytime.com and it kicks a lot of ass, >>>>>>>>>>>just wondering what the author is doing with WCCC >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I'm trying to get it set up. It is "iffy"... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Assuming all goes the way you want, and you get the hardware you want for the >>>>>>>>>WCCC2004, how do you feel that you fair against the competition, now i know you >>>>>>>>>aren't sure if or which type of hardware box/cluster you are getting, but >>>>>>>>>assuming you get something juicy, how do you feel crafty 19.13 fairs with that >>>>>>>>>hardware. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I believe that Crafty 19.13 has the same chances as any of the top 4 program >>>>>>>>from the SSDF, it is a matter of LUCK in such a short tourney :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jorge >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well, luck is important in short tournaments, but not the only thing...explain >>>>>>>why from 1996 only Junior and Shredder won WCCC tournaments and not other chess >>>>>>>programs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is a reason for everything... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sandro >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You must also respect the final decisions of the TD Jaap vd H who can always >>>>>>change the chess rules at will. This and also opponents who throw a drawn game. >>>>>>So yes, that makes it understandable why certain things do happen... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yes, it is extremely important not to let program bugs get in the way of the >>>>>correct result ;-) >>>>> >>>>>Frank >>>> >>>>What I like in this forum is that several people have a great fantasy; they >>>>always come out with something new!:-)) >>>> >>>>I mean they are not repetitive at all!:-)) >>>> >>>>Most importantly the deeply analyze things and give detailed explanations! >>>> >>>>Wow! >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>Rolf, >> >>>Sandro, >>>you are a great expert; you make a good book, but why don't you feel at least a >>>little bit ashamed that SHREDDER got half a point only because its opponent gave >>>up a dead drawn game??? >> >>I am a chess player even if I do not play anymore since several years and my way >>to think/judge things is from there. > >Then we have a common base, Sandro, I'm a chessplayer too. Not just a CC >operator. I did not say you are not. I was explaing where mine comes from. > > > >>As a chess player I leave to who has the right to claim a draw and if it does >>not I accept his decision as well as the referee decision. >>Believe it or not this is a respect form to my opponent and to the organization. > >I am very pleased that you are willing to debate the case that happened in Graz >last year. So I can make clear my position. It is - unfortunately - completely >different to yours. You base your reflection on the respect for the decisions of >your opponents - which is in my eyes a very sound and widely respected position. >But I want to show you why that basically sound position is completely wrong in >some extra cases. I want to lead your attention to something "higher" that >simply the respect for the decisions of the opponents. Let me elaborate please. > >I am certain that you have a banque account. And I am also sure that you respect >the general calculations of your banque. Now think for a moment about the >following case. Your banque accords you 2 millions of Euro. Are you therefore a >millionaire? If you think so, then you are wrong. It happened to me, even with not such a high amount and I call the bank informing them about the mistake...they told me they just find it out too and did thank me for calling! This comes from the way my parents educated me...I do not care to be millioner if they money do not belong to me...I leave well even without...I prefer not to feel embarassed about anything and not to create problems to other people...it is a respect form... >Because the banque probably will correct its decision and tell you "sorry >Sandro this was a little fault in >our computer" and you will respect that verdict. Because there are certain >_rules_, Sandro! In chess we have rules too. Here in case of SHREDDER and SMK as >operator we have the situation, dear Sandro, that the "opponent", a very good >chessplayer BTW, talked to SMK about the situation. >He said that he didn't want to win the drawing half point because SHREDDER >earlier had already a won position. The question is now - with a draw on board, >because a three fold rep IS a draw, No, you are wrong. I give you the example: after the moves 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 3. Nf3 Ng8 4. Ng1 Ng8 5. Nf3 black can ask for a draw, calling the referee, stating that 5...Nf6 would bring to a draw by the 3 position repetition rule. This ONLY IF HE ASK THIS BEFORE MAKING THE MOVE...if he does not and play 5. Nf6 the game can continuo. This is according to the FIDE rules. At move 6. Nf3 white is not forced to ask for a draw. He can if he wants ask it before making the move on the board. Computers automatically would ask for a draw, which is not exactly what the FIDE rules say; I mean it is a choice and not a must. With the 50 moves rule it is a must and not a choice. You know all this, so why going on this again and again? >Sandro - should one chessplayer(like you and >me) accept that forfeit or should we accept and respect that out of whatever >reasons the opponent missed the win and went for the repetition? In my view we >must respect the draw which is on board. We would be sorry but we can't change >the board position. Now as operator of a chessprogram we must even MORE respect >the nonsense the machine had played - NOTE WELL that this was our own machine >that played the bullshit. But we have a new opponent without experience and who >now wants to grant us the earlier already attained win. Is it decent to accept >the present? It is allowed...we do not make the rules...we must follows them... >Of course NOT. Look, Sandro, if we had just a match between this >new participant and us - as the alltime winners - THEN of course we could accept >it but NOT in a tournament where others are involved! You know well that FRITZ >would have won the Wch if SHREDDER would NOT have won the whole point. If the Jonny operator whould have done it we would not have protested. We think we were lucky he did not...the lucky factor we were talking about. >Therefore, Sandro, I find > >1) the behaviour of the JONNY author indecent because violation of Law Again this is your opinion. I do not agree. I would have done the same and I do not feel myself indecent. If I have the right to chose what I think is best for me and I chose, nobody can criticize that...if they can which right to chose did I have? >2) the behaviour of Meyer-Kahlen indecent that he accepted the violation No, the FIDE rules are clear and he did what we was allowed to. >3) the behaviour of the TD Jaap vd H incredibly wrong in regard of FRITZ This has been discussed already too much and there are different opinions which cannot be modified...it does not bring anywhere to continuo. >4) the behaviour of all participants indecent who did NOT protest vs. TD No, since I always accept the referee decision I cannot call someone who does the same indecent or feel the same...this is a non respect way to do which does not belong to me. > > >>He is free to decide what he likes and I MUST respect him and his decision. >>Yes, we were lucky he did chose to continuo the game which was won by us >>previously. >>I said in his plays I would have done the same. This is the way the very great >>majority of strong chess players think and would act. We call it sportive and >>respectful way. > >No, we dont respect this. We cant win a game from a dead drawn position. Please >read what Hartston, the British GM, wrote about cheating in chess. I do not him, but my ideas are clear and I do not have to read anyone article to make it more clear. >Sandro, if we >knew that our opponent is always a bit short on money and therefore he accepts a >little extra donation if he gives draw or even gives full point, could we accept >his very personal motivation to violate the rules of chess? We made no pressure on anyone and not ask anything...he made the decision on his own...how is it possible to think otherwise? It is a sport competition and not a big business... >If I understand you >then we could, no, we should respect his own decisions. But I must object and >call it cheating. Excuse me, Sandro, until now the rules of chess are defined by FIDE and not by mafia. Excuse the little uppercut. :) Well, the FIDE norms are the one I listed upthere...what did we do agaist them? What is MAFIA? We have exported all; we do not have it in Italy anymore...:-) > >>In the computer chess world this may do not fit because many programmers do not >>have the same thinking attitude. >>I respect this also, but I do not agree. >>This is what I think and believe. No matter what you may say I will not change >>this thinking attitude/way. > >Thanks for having such a big respect for my arguments, Sandro. :) > I do respect your opinion, but you have to respect other people opinions too. If you state that they are indecent...do you respect their opinions? >> >> >>>Are you, as an expert, really happy with such unsportive >>>and unfair actions? >> >>For a chess player it is not so. >> >>>From a programmer of a 7 times winner I would expect that he >>>would refuse to accept such presents. >> >>Well, I think no one would have done what you say...I do believe that. We >>accepted our opponent decision...that's all. >> >>>Would that have been really a disaster? >> >> >>No. You miss the point...it is a thinking attitude. I mean there are chess rules >>which we follows. What is within the rules is fine for us. >>Kasparov would have done the same. > >Yes, tthat's possible but Kasparov did already violate the Golden Rules more >than once. He really did cheat already. See the Polgar case. So could you please >give a better example than Kasparov? Paul Morphy, my favorite player together with Bobby Fisher. > > >>Do not forget we only got the possibility for the play-off and not the >>title...Fritz won the tournament game and had a more powerful hardware, so most >>people would expect Fritz to win. >>This is why I said we were lucky...to get the play-off! >> >>>Now the 8th title has the haut gout of a cheat. Sandro, I know that you know >>>this. Why don't you tell this SMK instead of criticising those who say just the truth??? >> >>It is not a matter of truth...it is a different way to see what to do in these >>cases... >>Shall I blame myself because I ALWAYS accept our opponents decisions and the >>referee decisions? > > >Yes, because in case your opponents does violate the rules you can't tolerate >that, period. See the rules above. >Yes, Sandro, that is the bitter truth. You cant come through with >your "thinking attitude" - it is a very premature attitude. Premature? So, to do things within the rules, full respect of the opponent and of the referee and acceptance of the other people decisions is premature? Wow; I have learned something today too. Well, I prefer to lose than to win a lost game...this is why I said I would have done the same as Jonny operator...if allowed by the referee or course! >>I do not think so. >>Why to continuo this which is past? >>Why not to think about the future? > > >A good question, but the answer is already clear. We are talking because people >have difficulties to understand why the decisions in Graz were scandalous or >"bogus" how Bob expressed it. OK, I want to respect your opinion; why do not repect mine which is shared by many people too? > >Please, Sandro, beyond this very heated debate, let's respect each other in our >dignity. Yours and mine as well. I did. I'm very pleased that you addressed yourself to >me. I hope that you can profit from my arguments to the best of the future >events. > Well, to me the answer is to modify the chess programs in order to let them ask for a draw and not only claim the 3 folds repetition which, by the FIDE rules does not automatically makes the game a draw. Bob did lesson and changed his program to be in accordance with this! > >> >>>> >>>>Sandro >> 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.