Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[drd@xxxxxxx]

Hi David,

I was in a situation (in a computer chess tournament) where my program was 
losing the game, but the opponent was about to lose on time.    He was in the 
bathroom and for some reason got overly confident and forgot about the clock.   
He only needed to make 2 more moves but it didn't look like it was going to 
happen.    Moves were transfered manually by the programmers (or operators.)

This was an important tournament and I really wanted to win.   But I resolved 
in my mind that if his flag fell,  I would not make an issue of it even 
though it was my perfect right.   I just thought about the bad feelings I 
would have afterwards.   If the program had simply been taking way too long, 
I would not have been bothered by a win on time because I would have 
considered it unfair for his program to take so much time.  In computer 
chess, taking more time to think is a big advantage.    But in this case it 
was operator sloppiness and I just didn't feel right about it.

I would like to report that his flag fell and I did the noble thing,  but that 
is not what happened.  Sorry!   As it turned out he returned from the 
bathroom,  noticed  the clock, started chastising himself vocally and made 
the time with literally only 3 or 4 seconds to spare.    So I did not have to 
face that decision.   My program lost fair and square as they say!

I actually won that tournament the very next year (also beating his program 
without incident) and it made me think about what could have happened the 
previous year.   If his program had lost on time and I claimed the win, even 
though within my legal right I would have felt a little less victorious the 
following year.

I can tell you this.  If it had been my program in that Costen open, I would 
have resigned.   I  don't fault anyone for legally taking advantage of the 
rules,  that is their business and not for me to say they were wrong.   But 
as for myself I make a distinction about taking advantage of a technicality 
that wasn't in the original spirit of the rules.

Don  





On Thursday 28 July 2005 1:24 pm, David G Doshay wrote:
> On 28, Jul 2005, at 8:34 AM, Ben Shoemaker wrote:
> > Does the protocol enable a program to "cheat" and force another
> > program to
> > lose on time?  I don't think so.  If the cheating program is playing
> > worthless moves, the refutations should be obvious and not require a
> > significant amount of time to play.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not the case. When SlugGo played in the Cotsen
> Open
> one opponent was loosing badly on the board, by more than 100 points. He
> looked ready to resign when I casually commented that he was not going
> to
> win on the board, but might win on time. He was able to find moves that
> were
> not going to result in a win, either from an equally strong human or
> from
> SlugGo, but he did succeed in running SlugGo's clock down and he won
> the game. The distinction is that "worthless" can still be tactically
> complicated.
>
> As far as I was concerned this was a fine result: He got what he wanted,
> which was a win in the tournament, and I got what I wanted, which was to
> see that SlugGo could beat a human 8 kyu if the clock had not been an
> issue.
> Pareto optimality.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/