Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:04:56 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 14:32:30, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 13:41:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 11, 2003 at 13:20:29, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>Robert, >>> >>>I think it is not the case to continuo. I will stay on my ideas as you are going >>>to stay on yours. >>> >>>I am interested on winning games on the board and not in the forum. >>> >>>I am sorry, but I do trust more Darse than you, as well as the TD in Graz. >>> >>>I only hope that in future the programmers will agree to stop the games when the >>>score is not lower than -10 to avoid "ridiculus". >>> >>>By being a chess player I find to continuo playing "extremely lost games" >>>offensive and not useful at all to show how strong the chess programs have >>>become. >>> >>>I am saying this here now to avoid someone would link this to Shredder games. >>> >>>I am a true chess and computer chess lover and hate to see non senses like >>>playing extremely lost positions. >>> >>>How can a programmer be proud of not losing or winning a game extremely lost? >> >>Let me turn that around: "How can a programmer be proud of winning when >>his opponent resigned in a game he might possibly not win?" That is the >>case at hand, in fact. Had the program resigned before that point, you >>would have won, no uproar would have occurred, no injustice would have been >>done, and all would be well. But the rules of chess do _not_ require that >>the opponent resign. The players are allowed to play until a rule of chess >>ends the game in draw or mate or time forfeit. >> >>The moral of the story is "debug better". >> >> >>> >>>Does it makes sense a statement like "well, this year my program did score very >>>well as we scored 5 out of 8 while last year I scored 0. The first game it went >>>down -12, but the opponent had a bug and we could win the game. The second one >>>the opponent had a mate in 12, but a bug made the program lose 3 pieces and we >>>won. The third game we won with 3 pieces less because the opponent program got a >>>bug that removed all the hashtables use and so on..." >>> >>>Wow there is a lot to be proud! >> >> >>He could certainly be proud of the fact that he showed up with a program >>that could play correctly and not screw up due to various bugs that were >>not found due to lack of proper testing. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>I am clearly exagerrating, but it seems for some people this would be >>>acceptable... >> >> >>What is acceptable is for a program to win the games on its own. Not via >>an operator making decisions contrary to the rules, and the TD allowing >>such rule violations to stand. I have lost games due to bugs. I have >>lost on time due to bugs. That is just a part of the game. As a human >>I have won _many_ games a rook or queen down, when my opponent either ran >>out of time or made a gross blunder. I don't feel any better or worse >>about winning on time than I do by mating my opponent. If I win on time, >>I simply used my time better, and time _is_ a part of the game. >> >>Tournaments are about results, nothing else. >> >> >Really? Then you have a problem then sir, one which needs no explaining to the >readers. > >No matter what the damn rules say, this attitude reeks! You have the _real_ problem. For example, why don't you educate me on how final tournament standings are produced? I seemed to have missed where _anything_ other than wins, losses and draws influenced the standings in the final crosstable. Please explain what I have overlooked for 35+ years of tournament play... > > >> >>> >>>??????????????????????? >>>I will never understand this! >>> >>>Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.