Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:02:27 05/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
Dear Sandro, thanks for the extended answer. Let me confirm you that I take all what you write as decent. Since I dont know you in person I can only judge you from what you write. Since our two positions are a bit contrary I'm trying to find out about the reasons. Of course these can also be hidden in our personalities. but even if I am a psychologist I can't mind read and be a clair-voyant. So I do concentrate myself on the written data. I think I know why we have a misunderstanding each other. It also has something to do with status and the importance of the events as such. The case is so difficult because we always talk about it without exactly looking to the little conditions. You and I are chessplayers. Now we know that talking between the moves is impossible. But in computerchess this is NOT the case. And here I see hidden the secret of the actual problem. You are right, from a face value position Stefan MK and also Z., you and me, we are all decent people, no doubt about it. Now let's take a closer look: The moment Jonny author Z. began to talk with Stefan MK about his unwillingness to continue following the rules and make a draw, SMK could and should have told him, SMK as the many time winner, that he, Stefan would not be happy with a thrown game, no matter how embarrassing it were for him that SHREDDER played such a nonsense. Stefan did NOT do that. And as a computerchess expert he should have. That is the fault. Z. was new in town (at least for CC). But also Jaap is to blame because he must have seen the confusion of the young operator. As you know Z. appeared two times before the TD and described his "problem". From his chess experience Z. _knew_ about the coming danger for SHREDDER. This is a matter of seconds while Stefan as a way weaker player still tried to figure out how many times the rep had been happened. But all that has been discussed already. We two, we have now a different problem. You want to excuse how it happened and I say that it was wrong and indecent. Now you cannot argue that it is your style as you've often showed in your chess career. Because this is not about chess but also computerchess. Stefan should have told Z. that he must obey to what his own prog says. It said DRAW. It didn't say somethingg like "play on and lose the game in favor of SMK". Know what I mean, Sandro? How can you excuse such a wrong by the two operators? And then also the TD? Because he could have corrected the wrong of the two others. But he didn't. And loser was FRITZ who had already won the Wch at that point in case of the draw of SHREDDER. Know what I mean? I do only discuss how we NOW must see what happened then. We are NOT in the situation. And from all what we do know we must condemn what happened then, what the three did or didn't do. And we must criticise all those who did not protest. What I'm saying is that you cannot argue as if YOUR chess career experiences could define how in computerchess operators who speak to one another must behave. It's a different situation that you never had before. The only thing that is known to both of us that is the 3-fold repetition rule. And I already told you months ago, the moment a player argues speaking out loud that he doesn't want that a program X, his opponent at the time, would lose half a point through a technical bug, at that moment the other operator must have protested because such a wrondoing is against all ethics of chess and against particular players in the tournament! In short, you want to be a fair sportsman, and therefore you cant accept such a present that is so unfair against other participants. Summary: Since you are a speaking operator you can't be compared to the chessplayer Sandro who always respected what his many opponents did in the past. Computerchess IS different! :)
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.