Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:17:58 05/25/04
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. Yes, all people can thinks different and what they want, but facts are facts and can't be denied. >> >>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. You see, we have even a reading problem. I did NOT talk about YOU in such a situation, but YOU in our talks NOW about the situation SMK was in. You see the difference? >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. You are a bit funny. I mean, your argument is funny. You write "even if it would be sometimes better to do differently", but here I see the main point of our dissent. I couldn't feel well if I knew I would violate the FIDE laws. SMK KNEW that the throwing of a game is unallowed. He plays chess like you and me. >For me to be myself is more importand than get advantages. I must smile, Sandro. Because 1) you are completely right but 2) you are talking about the contrary of what happened in Graz. SMK your buddy, got advantages through the violating of the Laws. >Maybe for someone >this may seems stupid, but this is how I am and I am not interested to be >different. You mean to get advantages you would also tolerate that the Laws would be violated? I hoped not. > >> >>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. Are you an anarchist, Sandro? If someone violates the Law you can't stop him because you would force him if you did??? Where did you learn such logic? Does the Law means nothing to you? Are you only interested in your well-being, no matter if you did good or bad? You are confusing me. >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. Sandro! Please wait a moment! You are operating a CC game. You are NOT playing a normal game of chess. In CC operators do talk. Ok!? Stefan MK did talk! Ok!? >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. What are you talking about, Sandro? The two operators did talk with one another! You are creating a new reality if you want to deny that. > So I believed he would have >preferred that this would not have happened, but it was not his choice. Objection! If he talked to Zwanzger he is obliged to express that he doesn't want such a violation of the Laws. But Stefan didn't do that. He was please that he got the half point. This is unfair and not sportsmans-like. >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... I must smile about such a strange logic. At first there is the violation of the Laws. If Stefan would have refused to that "present", sure, certain people could have started an argument of that mentioned sort but I would have called such people as crazy. Now we shouldn't base our own ethical principles on crazy people's ideas, don't you agree? > >>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. Objection! Stefan for sure did know that throwing a game is unsportive and unallowed. He should NOT have accepted. He should have congratulated FRITZ. > >> >>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... Throwing a game isn't good belief. It's unfair! >> >>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 Chessbase-Mag I read what Stefan wrote about the tournament and he IMO did NOT tell what really happened. Instead he created a new reality. Look: Stefan wrote that the tournament had shown that the best progs - when they played the weaker entries - had a run all in normal expectances. This is a completely false claim. As Stefan's own game against Jonny proved. Nothing went normal if SHREDDER couldn't win a won game. Don't you think so? Sandro! Your personal happiness in all honor, but facts remain facts anf the reality can't be re-created post-mortem. > >> >>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. But you should talk about the events how they happened and not in a re-created version. Facts remain facts. > >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? I have no doubt that SHREDDER will win one of the next events without the violation of FIDE Laws, yes, that I'm certain of. But for me Stefan has lost a bit of his credibility. Sorry, that's a fact. :( > >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.