Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:41:25 05/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2004 at 13:35:26, Uri Blass wrote: >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. In this world there is only one sure thing...you know what I mean... I am confident...very confident... > >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. There is a FIDE rule and is is clear...next time we will kill our opponents without giving them any chances even from a bug...we will kill phsycologically even the chess program (besides the programmer)! > >Uri 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.