My Thoughts on the debate

[AdminX]

The World Rapidplay Debate has had me thinking. So not wanting to take sides and offend people here that I like overall. I will just say that I agree with some and not with others. I still like you guys even if I don't agree with you. That said ...

I think the same amount of preparation that goes into getting a chess engine ready for an event, should be given to understanding the rules for that event. If that means testing everything out and seeing that it comforms to the rules for this said event then so be it. Isn't that what the purpose of all this testing is for?? Adequate testing might have avoided some of these problems, and therefore certain engines may also have avoided entering said events, since they would have known if they were qualified to enter in advance.

Now I know it is hard to oversee an online event as there is no real way to know what someone is doing at a remote location. I do think there should be a pre-qualifying event to make sure that all engines meet the defined standards and rules for any major event, even if this said pre-qualifying event is to only ensure that all engines can adhere to all the defined rules.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

The World Rapidplay Debate has had me thinking. So not wanting to take sides and offend people here that I like overall. I will just say that I agree with some and not with others. I still like you guys even if I don't agree with you. That said ...

I think the same amount of preparation that goes into getting a chess engine ready for an event, should be given to understanding the rules for that event. If that means testing everything out and seeing that it comforms to the rules for this said event then so be it. Isn't that what the purpose of all this testing is for?? Adequate testing might have avoided some of these problems, and therefore certain engines may also have avoided entering said events, since they would have known if they were qualified to enter in advance.

Now I know it is hard to oversee an online event as there is no real way to know what someone is doing at a remote location. I do think there should be a pre-qualifying event to make sure that all engines meet the defined standards and rules for any major event, even if this said pre-qualifying event is to only ensure that all engines can adhere to all the defined rules.

Thanks Ted,couldn't say it better

[frankp]

The World Rapidplay Debate has had me thinking. So not wanting to take sides and offend people here that I like overall. I will just say that I agree with some and not with others. I still like you guys even if I don't agree with you. That said ...

I think the same amount of preparation that goes into getting a chess engine ready for an event, should be given to understanding the rules for that event. If that means testing everything out and seeing that it comforms to the rules for this said event then so be it. Isn't that what the purpose of all this testing is for?? Adequate testing might have avoided some of these problems, and therefore certain engines may also have avoided entering said events, since they would have known if they were qualified to enter in advance.

Now I know it is hard to oversee an online event as there is no real way to know what someone is doing at a remote location. I do think there should be a pre-qualifying event to make sure that all engines meet the defined standards and rules for any major event, even if this said pre-qualifying event is to only ensure that all engines can adhere to all the defined rules.

Short of making the computer walk to the venue by itself, you need to make the event as automatic and outside human influence during play as possible.
Clear conditions include being clear about:
a) What happens if you cannot meet them - even if you are wizbang the best with a fan club;
b) What happens if the conditions are not meet; and
c) Whether all are equal.

[Rolf]

At the risk of nitpicking I may repeat that Bob Hyatt stated that this here is a case of a violation for what the rules are clear for 37 years and he also called it a very serious violation of a basic not-to-to in any case. This is simpler than the complicated debate about if conditions could be met in its overall size. IMO. (Sorry but I dont even know who was the arbiter in this event.)

[Harvey Williamson]

At the risk of nitpicking I may repeat that Bob Hyatt stated that this here is a case of a violation for what the rules are clear for 37 years and he also called it a very serious violation of a basic not-to-to in any case. This is simpler than the complicated debate about if conditions could be met in its overall size. IMO. (Sorry but I dont even know who was the arbiter in this event.)

Bob also admitted in the thread that he knowingly broke the rules for most of the tournament. By whispering moves instead of Kibitzing them. This may seem like a minor infringement but for someone with 37 years experience he should know better. His program was breaking this rule well into day 2.

He asked what the difference is in the thread that is temporarily removed there are several answers. 1 is against the rules 1 is not. It is something that someone with 37 years of experience should know and the real difference is that it does not give the important information required by the rules to the opponent.

[bob]

I thought I was done here, but as always, a private email drags me back to at least set the record straight...

I will be more than happy to produce a complete log of all ICC messages to channel 64, and _all_ kibitzes from the Crafty games. Crafty's first game on the second day was against Petir and it clearly kibitzed every move. It kibitzed in every last game on the second day. I turned kibitzing on and whispering off by the start of the Zappa game on day one.

When I got up on Sat AM, I discovered the machine I was going to use was powered off. We had an A/C emergency that required shutting machines down. I headed to the office and started Crafty running on my office machine rather than the machine I was going to use. And once we got the A/C fiasco cleaned up around noon or a bit earlier, I logged Crafty on using my core-2 duo laptop since we could not start all machines with A/C screwed up. Once I fixed that, I changed from "whisper=4" to "kibitz=4" for crafty and that was that. I believe we played you while I was not online that morning, when I was at the lab trying to get things up again. And we were not kibitzing then for sure. But we were whispering, which let everyone but the opponent see our output. And we were fully _automatic_ with no operator intervention of any kind, which is a more important rule, IMHO.;

If you want to make up things, better make 'em up about people that are not meticulous in their data collecting. I can reproduce every last thing that was kibitzed, whispers, shouted or "told" to Crafty during the event. And it was _not_ whispering well into the second day. That's pure fiction.

Given the choice of which is worse, an operator influencing the outcome of a game, or whispering (as in past CCT events) vs kibitzing, which one seems like the most egregious conduct, hmmm??

All you have to do is either read the rules, or participate in computer chess event discussions, and you'd know about the non-interference rules and not have to rely on ignorance as an excuse.

Now, write what you want, but if you are going to mention me or my program, keep it factual or keep it to yourself.

[Rolf]

At the risk of nitpicking I may repeat that Bob Hyatt stated that this here is a case of a violation for what the rules are clear for 37 years and he also called it a very serious violation of a basic not-to-to in any case. This is simpler than the complicated debate about if conditions could be met in its overall size. IMO. (Sorry but I dont even know who was the arbiter in this event.)

Bob also admitted in the thread that he knowingly broke the rules for most of the tournament. By whispering moves instead of Kibitzing them. This may seem like a minor infringement but for someone with 37 years experience he should know better. His program was breaking this rule well into day 2.

He asked what the difference is in the thread that is temporarily removed there are several answers. 1 is aganst the rules 1 is not. It is something that someone with 37 years of experience shouls know and the real difference is that it does not give the important information required by the rules to the opponent.

Without personally knowing you, Harvey, let me confirm you that I have great respect for your courage to stand up for your thoughts in such a difficult situation. No matter how this will be solved you already have won by your honesty in reporting what you've done.

Also I can well imagine how you must have felt in the moments during the game when you decided to take the risk of a loss only to reach the foreseen tie by all means. That was in a fine competitive spirit.

Now after all has been said and Bob clarified that this was a serious violation of a fundamental rule, there is not much you can do, more, you can only lose of what you've earlier won by your sincerity.

For all it looks sub-optimal if you throw certain wrongs on the sides of your critics into the ring. Because this cant wipe out what you have to take responsibility for.

Practically all of us would excuse your handling in your game if you could now realise that you've made a goss mistake motivated by the absolute determination to get the tie with RYBKA. Your case is only more speaking in favor of a total automatic system for eng-eng games. Psychologists have found out, that we all, man as such, will make all the mistakes that are possible in a particular situation. The tension is just too high so that our emotions can well trouble our otherwise brilliant mind. So, dont worry too much about your mistake, but also dont try to talk it away or resist any form of bargain who has sinned more...

I wouldnt take Bob's different declarations as contradictory. He just described how they handled the whisper tool in such eng-eng, so that the operator of the opponent couldnt make any conclusions. As I understood the feature, the informations are only shut down for the direct opponents. Can you confirm this?

The same with RYBKA's late entry. Would you really like to win an event by excluding RYBKA on formal reasons? That would look odd and contradicted your own honesty in your report. Sure, this could be a reason to curse for some seconds <g> but why being angry about it.

I must admit that you have much more experience in computerchess and I can only admire you as one of the big experts. With the above I dont try to put myself over you but I want to show you the importance of such an aspect. In the eyes of your fans it's better that you have made a mistake and admitted it than seeing you now fighting a bloody fight about the who has done more wrong in the last events. Honestly I always liked how much class Vas always showed by communicating with everyone who had a question. All IMO.

I wished that you could find enough inspiration for winning friends among your critics. Perhaps you dont know how well the average members think about you as you are among the experts who are talking here. But this is a silent admiration. You cant expect the people to call a wrong a not so wrong only because they want to support you. I think they all wished to see you master this very difficult situation in all honesty and with style.

All the very best to you and your program.

[Harvey Williamson]

I thought I was done here, but as always, a private email drags me back to at least set the record straight...

I will be more than happy to produce a complete log of all ICC messages to channel 64, and _all_ kibitzes from the Crafty games. Crafty's first game on the second day was against Petir and it clearly kibitzed every move. It kibitzed in every last game on the second day. I turned kibitzing on and whispering off by the start of the Zappa game on day one.

When I got up on Sat AM, I discovered the machine I was going to use was powered off. We had an A/C emergency that required shutting machines down. I headed to the office and started Crafty running on my office machine rather than the machine I was going to use. And once we got the A/C fiasco cleaned up around noon or a bit earlier, I logged Crafty on using my core-2 duo laptop since we could not start all machines with A/C screwed up. Once I fixed that, I changed from "whisper=4" to "kibitz=4" for crafty and that was that. I believe we played you while I was not online that morning, when I was at the lab trying to get things up again. And we were not kibitzing then for sure. But we were whispering, which let everyone but the opponent see our output. And we were fully _automatic_ with no operator intervention of any kind, which is a more important rule, IMHO.;

If you want to make up things, better make 'em up about people that are not meticulous in their data collecting. I can reproduce every last thing that was kibitzed, whispers, shouted or "told" to Crafty during the event. And it was _not_ whispering well into the second day. That's pure fiction.

Given the choice of which is worse, an operator influencing the outcome of a game, or whispering (as in past CCT events) vs kibitzing, which one seems like the most egregious conduct, hmmm??

All you have to do is either read the rules, or participate in computer chess event discussions, and you'd know about the non-interference rules and not have to rely on ignorance as an excuse.

Now, write what you want, but if you are going to mention me or my program, keep it factual or keep it to yourself.

you admitted yourself you broke the rules. You did not kibitze to me during our game or why would I have mentioned it?

[Harvey Williamson]

At the risk of nitpicking I may repeat that Bob Hyatt stated that this here is a case of a violation for what the rules are clear for 37 years and he also called it a very serious violation of a basic not-to-to in any case. This is simpler than the complicated debate about if conditions could be met in its overall size. IMO. (Sorry but I dont even know who was the arbiter in this event.)

Bob also admitted in the thread that he knowingly broke the rules for most of the tournament. By whispering moves instead of Kibitzing them. This may seem like a minor infringement but for someone with 37 years experience he should know better. His program was breaking this rule well into day 2.

He asked what the difference is in the thread that is temporarily removed there are several answers. 1 is aganst the rules 1 is not. It is something that someone with 37 years of experience shouls know and the real difference is that it does not give the important information required by the rules to the opponent.

Without personally knowing you, Harvey, let me confirm you that I have great respect for your courage to stand up for your thoughts in such a difficult situation. No matter how this will be solved you already have won by your honesty in reporting what you've done.

Also I can well imagine how you must have felt in the moments during the game when you decided to take the risk of a loss only to reach the foreseen tie by all means. That was in a fine competitive spirit.

Now after all has been said and Bob clarified that this was a serious violation of a fundamental rule, there is not much you can do, more, you can only lose of what you've earlier won by your sincerity.

For all it looks sub-optimal if you throw certain wrongs on the sides of your critics into the ring. Because this cant wipe out what you have to take responsibility for.

Practically all of us would excuse your handling in your game if you could now realise that you've made a goss mistake motivated by the absolute determination to get the tie with RYBKA. Your case is only more speaking in favor of a total automatic system for eng-eng games. Psychologists have found out, that we all, man as such, will make all the mistakes that are possible in a particular situation. The tension is just too high so that our emotions can well trouble our otherwise brilliant mind. So, dont worry too much about your mistake, but also dont try to talk it away or resist any form of bargain who has sinned more...

I wouldnt take Bob's different declarations as contradictory. He just described how they handled the whisper tool in such eng-eng, so that the operator of the opponent couldnt make any conclusions. As I understood the feature, the informations are only shut down for the direct opponents. Can you confirm this?

The same with RYBKA's late entry. Would you really like to win an event by excluding RYBKA on formal reasons? That would look odd and contradicted your own honesty in your report. Sure, this could be a reason to curse for some seconds <g> but why being angry about it.

I must admit that you have much more experience in computerchess and I can only admire you as one of the big experts. With the above I dont try to put myself over you but I want to show you the importance of such an aspect. In the eyes of your fans it's better that you have made a mistake and admitted it than seeing you now fighting a bloody fight about the who has done more wrong in the last events. Honestly I always liked how much class Vas always showed by communicating with everyone who had a question. All IMO.

I wished that you could find enough inspiration for winning friends among your critics. Perhaps you dont know how well the average members think about you as you are among the experts who are talking here. But this is a silent admiration. You cant expect the people to call a wrong a not so wrong only because they want to support you. I think they all wished to see you master this very difficult situation in all honesty and with style.

All the very best to you and your program.

Rolf,

Thanks for that. If you read my first reply to Bob in the thread when Graham reinstates it you will see I did just that I said I wont operate in an ICC event again. However Bob decided to Spam the thread with several posts rather than just making his point and waiting for a reply.

Best Wishes,

Harvey

[Graham Banks]

Thanks for that. If you read my first reply to Bob in the thread when Graham reinstates it you will see I did just that I said I wont operate in an ICC event again. However Bob decided to Spam the thread with several posts rather than just making his point and waiting for a reply.

Best Wishes,

Harvey

Bob was replying to several posts as he felt necessary. I dont think it's fair to accuse him of spamming.
The original thread has now been returned so that discussion can continue there if desired.

Regards, Graham.