2007 World Computer Rapid Chess Championships: Final Results

[hgm]

Well, not everybody. Only the top programs. If the author of a 'mediocre' engine violated the rules, he would be torn to pieces, of course.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Well, not everybody. Only the top programs. If the author of a 'mediocre' engine violated the rules, he would be torn to pieces, of course.

Ah....

Ok, the play strenght shouldn't have any weight for the rules and violations of rules of course. If a Engine has 1300 ELO or 2900 ELO it shouldn't have any influence anyway. But maybe i'm just dreaming of a perfect world...

Best,
Daniel

[Rolf]

Note that it doesn't upset me so much what Harvey did, as that I am shocked by the opinion held by some here that authors of weaker programs should not be allowed to criticise or object to rule violations by stronger programs.

Like I would not be allowed to testify in a murder trial where I saw the suspect gun down someone because I am not a crack marksman myself.

This really makes no sense at all...

If anything then it upsets me that with your exception all out of the always so busy definers of the 'appropriate' disappeared. Only therefore you appear as almost a revolutinary. I miss two mods who else claim to organise and operate progs in dozens. If they would speak, an average visitor like SB wouldnt have gone away with this sort of negative comment towards posters with allegedly lower reputation. Just in case it interests someone, I for one, could imagine a climate of cultured debates, where many more of the 300plus programmers would share their views. Then your opinions, hgm, couldnt be judged as if they were a sort of 'insult against majesty' as we say in German. What I really do fear is that if you now also faded away, that then nobody could dare to make legal, sound, needed statements. I register a trend of naked positivism where it is only asked for if e.g. in this case an arbiter intervened somehow. With the unspoken insinuation that if not that then nobody should care where nothing had happened at all. The most dangerous censorship is the scissor in one's own head without any activity from the outside. Actually Uri and you are symbols of Free Speech. Programmers should be role models, no primadonnas with invisible signs of "Adore me please but shut up if you want to tell me that I was talking nonsense."

[Steve B]

Well, not everybody. Only the top programs. If the author of a 'mediocre' engine violated the rules, he would be torn to pieces, of course.

i dont think so

i can see that the formula is different as follows:

World Class Program interprets the rules wrong=Mediocre engine authors attack from all fronts while non engine members do not

Mediorce Engine interprets the rules wrong=nothing is mentioned by the operator so there are no comments made

the comments made were nothing more then

SOUR GRAPES Regards
Steve

[Steve B]

If Harvey had knowingly cheated, he wouldn't be dumb enough to openly post about it.

Correct Graham

a point i made in my very first post on this sad topic

Shaking Head Regards
Steve

[Eelco de Groot]

Well, you told me yourself that no line was checked, and that you don't consider it worth a few months of computer time to check them.

But, apart from how I phrased it (which perhaps might have been a bit harsh), a fact remains that if you would have checked it, you would not have had problems like the one you are complaining about now. And that others don't check either (and frequently complain just as loud as you do about the bad lines that were so unsuspectingly thrown upon their poor engine) is no excuse. It is not the responsibility of others to make HIARCS win tourneys.

whatever - the lines are checked but not at the minute a move i talked about they were checked at an average of 10 seconds a move and that 1 seems to have slipped through.

Why dont you try to build a book you will see how tricky it is. You make a new book and it will win for a week or two but then those clever book cookers on Playchess will refute your new lines. Give it a try. When you have a book and a team of people you cant afford to pay to keep it up to date we are ready to be challenged.

Then try and make the same book for every chess interface out there - it is a full time job!

Harvey you should make a contest out of it; maker of a really outstanding Tournament (difficult)/Internet server play (not so hard I think)-book for Hiarcs gets any free updates till 2010! Or maybe somebody can donate a computer for the cause! By the way, checking every move for one minute, don't know but somehow I don't think that is really going to work either, as you said then you are probably better off starting with a much smaller book that is fully analyzed, by more engines than one and much longer than one minute, to making cooking a book harder. But I know next to nothing about making books..

Regards, Eelco

[Harvey Williamson]

Well, you told me yourself that no line was checked, and that you don't consider it worth a few months of computer time to check them.

But, apart from how I phrased it (which perhaps might have been a bit harsh), a fact remains that if you would have checked it, you would not have had problems like the one you are complaining about now. And that others don't check either (and frequently complain just as loud as you do about the bad lines that were so unsuspectingly thrown upon their poor engine) is no excuse. It is not the responsibility of others to make HIARCS win tourneys.

whatever - the lines are checked but not at the minute a move i talked about they were checked at an average of 10 seconds a move and that 1 seems to have slipped through.

Why dont you try to build a book you will see how tricky it is. You make a new book and it will win for a week or two but then those clever book cookers on Playchess will refute your new lines. Give it a try. When you have a book and a team of people you cant afford to pay to keep it up to date we are ready to be challenged.

Then try and make the same book for every chess interface out there - it is a full time job!

Harvey you should make a contest out of it; maker of a really outstanding Tournament (difficult)/Internet server play (not so hard I think)-book for Hiarcs gets any free updates till 2010! Or maybe somebody can donate a computer for the cause! By the way, checking every move for one minute, don't know but somehow I don't think that is really going to work either, as you said then you are probably better off starting with a much smaller book that is fully analyzed, by more engines than one and much longer than one minute, to making cooking a book harder. But I know next to nothing about making books..

Regards, Eelco

Hi Eelco,

The small book we would use to play in most tournaments would be made in a way you describe. Most tournaments like Leiden we would play using the CB GUI where I am at home and can make the book do what I want.

Of course we try to make the release book as good as possible and at least we can use it in other GUIs as it is controlled by the engine but we cant sit a ctg on top so it is very difficult to control what it does. However this is an advantage over Vas and Erdo as far as I know they have no way of even using their release books outside the CB GUI.

Best Wishes,

Harvey

[hgm]

I don't see anything wrong in Frank's post. He just makes a general observation on forum behavior, without accusing anyone in particular.

Your, post, on the other hand, contained a derogative qualification explicitly directed at two earlier posters. So I can imagine that someone would have considered it against forum rules.

For clarity: It is not my style to complain about posts, no matter how offensive I might think they are. [edited]

[Steve B]

I don't see anything wrong in Frank's post. He just makes a general observation on forum behavior, without accusing anyone in particular.

Your, post, on the other hand, contained a derogative qualification explicitly directed at two earlier posters. So I can imagine that someone would have considered it against forum rules.

For clarity: It is not my style to complain about posts, no matter how offensive I might think they are.

thanks

well as we all know who Phillips was referring to in his post
it is silly to make believe it was not directed at me
my post was simply more direct and not fiddling around the edges
i replied directly to the both of you as i am not such a big fan of semantic game play and thereby not talking directly to a poster in reply to one directed at me

also.. calling someones engine mediocre is now considered a direct perosnal attack on that person?

you are now the same being as your enigne?

Steve

[Uri Blass]

I don't see anything wrong in Frank's post. He just makes a general observation on forum behavior, without accusing anyone in particular.

Your, post, on the other hand, contained a derogative qualification explicitly directed at two earlier posters. So I can imagine that someone would have considered it against forum rules.

For clarity: It is not my style to complain about posts, no matter how offensive I might think they are. As I am a proponent of the philosophy that such posts do more damage to the poster than to the intended target, I just troll the offender in such cases to produce more of it.

thanks

well as we all know who Phillips was referring to in his post
it is silly to make believe it was not directed at me
my post was simply more direct and not fiddling around the edges
i replied directly to the both of you as i am not such a big fan of semantic game play and thereby not talking directly to a poster in reply to one directed at me

also.. calling someones engine mediocre is now considered a direct perosnal attack on that person?

you are now the same being as your enigne?

Steve

The problem was not the word mediocre but the fact that you wrote things only to insult them espacially your note about the condition that you will
be interested in computer chess that I am not going to repeat.

I complained about your post.

Uri