Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:26:42 05/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2004 at 09:02:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >Dear Sandro, Dear Rolf, I have appreciated your williness to try to understand other people point of view, so I will try to push you further in this...I am not trying to make you change your mind...I am only trying to show how people can thing different without being disonest. > >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. Well, as far as I am concerned the importance of the tournament would not effect me at all. I always try to be myself and to be pround of what I do; I mean to be able to be myself and take the right decisions even if sometimes it would be better or easier to do differently. For me to be myself is more importand than get advantages. Maybe for someone this may seems stupid, but this is how I am and I am not interested to be different. > >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). I do not agree on this because I think to try to force someone else decision in one way or another is bad. I see this as an "unacceptable interference" to someone else freedom. Maybe my way to think is related to me as chess player, but I would talk about a chess game only after is over and not before. To do it would have been bad and bring to critics in a way or another. So I think Stefan would have been criticized anyway. So I believed he would have preferred that this would not have happened, but it was not his choice. I mean some people would have criticized him not to have allowed the play-off and telling him he would have been afraid of loosing again against Fritz and so on... >But also Jaap is >to blame because he must have seen the confusion of the young operator. I never criticize the referee. If I do not trust him I would refuse to enter the tournament. If I enter I accept him and his decisions. >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? Yes, but we could live also without winning...I mean all we did it was because we thought we were allowed to do so, so we do not believe we can be criticized as we were in our good belief. > >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. I guess they all were in good belief... > >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! This has not been reported to me...as far as I know Stefan did not say anything other than being disappointed from the bug... > >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! :) I was not there and I only said what my point of view is. Ok, to make you happy we will win in Tel Aviv in a "normal way"...so no one will complain anymore...will that make you happy than? 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.