Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:35:26 05/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2004 at 13:26:42, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 You have good chance to win but you cannot be sure of it. I think that it is more important to be sure what happens in the future and to make clear that if a similiar event is going to happen in the future it will be a draw. Uri
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.