His purpose doesn't change a thing, his behaviour was in direct contravention of site rules. The lack of understanding is yours if you cant see that.

Chessmaster1000: I asked Sumerian why he didnt invite Trice to testgames instead of testing his robot in a 500-dollar tourney with a lot of low rated players..no answwer yet.

And understanding is important too....... But i don't see many, that understand the purpose Reinhard had using Smirf here.........

That's fine. This is a community and trust is an important foundation of it's structure.

The new policy should read that programs are not allowed and you will be punished if you get caught using one and since the only way you can get caught is to "tell" the real bottom line is to keep your mouth shut.

It was Trice's responsibility to put the facts in the tournament description but it was Sumerian's responsibility to personally inform all the players who entered the tournament, and had there been any objections from other entrants, Sumerian should have left that tournament.

He (Sumerian) already said that he always tells people when he plays with them. In the case of the tourney he was invited by EdTrice, so it would be Ed's duty to tell the other participants

Not all of us are critisizing sumerian, it would of just been nice to know that he was using a computer... i would of liked to of known this as i was in the group he was in too.
I didn't know i was playing agianst a computer, it doesn't really matter that its one hes made himself.. its still a computer which "helps" him make his moves.

If he genuinely stated to his opponents that he wanted their help in testing his program I wouldn't object but that isn't what happened, is it?

He hasn't said it, he wrote it on his profile and it is still a breach of the rules.

I say that Sumerian was sincere enough saying that he will be using his own program for playing and people critisizing him for doing that. I don't find this logical..........Just answer one question: Would have been better if he didn't say this? (I know the answer: Here computers are not allowed.......)

But he wanted to test his engine so he violated the rules. I don't have any problem with that. Obviously others have........

You are right , because we can see here the nonsense of rules which cannot be proved.

It's a question of abuse of trust, membership of BrainKing implies not using computer assistance.

Chessmaster1000: So you think its non-logical that every player should have the same right to use a "robot"? ....not sure i share your "logic"

I suggest to Sumerian to remove the sentence in his profile saying he uses a program.
Then nobody could say anything at all and all
these non-logical in my opinion voices would stop! As nobody could prove that he will be playing with a computer........
Do you see now why Sumerian is in fact too sincere to be treated in this way............?

Purple: I dont think anything, just because i dont understand what you mean

Andersp: I'm not necessarily advocating it but what would you think of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

EdTrice: Sure...start as many "test tourneys" you want who cares.

BUT AGAIN If one "engine" is allowed all "engines" must be allowed, doesnt matter who created them.

Caissus: This is a rule that is in place right now.
When rules are changed..then they are changed not before hand

Stevie: since which time do we have these game guidelines? Fencer has said that he want formulate them correctly in the next time.

Sumerian: no wether you tell it or not .. it remains the same .. you telling it clear to everyone is better than not telling .. but still i can see the point of people who dont want to play against a computer .. or if they do they want to be informed about it

by using a program and not telling anyone in any you are breaking the rules .. but using a program and making it possible for other people to find out is a vague area .. to use a program and tell everyone explicitely about it .. is a less vague area and could be allowed more easily .. not to use a computer would be the best though ;)

(not to make a computer to think out your moves for you of course .. you always need a computer to connect to this site ;))

Game Guidelines:

"NO CHEATING. This includes using outside programs to help play"

Why are you using this site? Test it at a site that allows computer.

Hrqls: "...but what about players who joined the tournament before you did ?"

But what, if I haven't told anything about it? Would then all have been happy to live in a world of illusion? You could not change reality by penaltilyzing those who frankly speak on that what they do. And in my special case I only have organized MY OWN experiences into the form of an unready program, I am not using any bought product.

Using computers is against the rules. The idea that it's the responsibility of other competitors to check whether or not anyone is admitting to breaking the rules is outrageous. What if a person admits on their profile to entering a tournament under several different names? Is that also okay because it's admitted? I dont see a problem with a computer user openly inviting an opponent to test the machine but the idea that it's the opponent's responsibility is ridiculous. I probably haven't read more than 15 profiles of all the members here and certainly dont want to start doing so. If I want to play with a computer I won't come to a site for humans, that's is obvious and any excuses about what's on a profile is eyewash.

Caissus: heh .. so lets say i am a top chess player .. would like to play persons and not computers .. i see a tournament .. i check all people who are signed up already to see if they are not computers .. they are not .. i sign up .. then just before the tournament starts i have to check all profiles of newly signed up players as well ? .. hmm i am lazy ;)
(but then again being lazy probably also doesnt give me a high chess rating, so its not really an issue fo rme personally ;))

Hrqls: They could read it too .

yesterday I couldnt access brainking for a while site not "available".. and today ever so often browsing is slow.
Is there something wrong Fencer? or my end?

Sumerian: but what about players who joined the tournament before you did ?

personally i dont mind (that much) playing against a computer .. you cant check it for real anyway .. but i can understand people who dont like it. especially if they have a high rating and can lose a lot

ughaibu: I do not expect it. But when one doesn't look, he should not be surprised, that he might have missed something.

It's nonsense to expect all entrants to tournaments to read the profiles of all the other entrants.

BIG BAD WOLF: If one doesn't use his possibilities to get available informations about his opponents, you cannot blame the opponents for that. I do not make a secret of the fact, that the improving Smirf beta program mostly would be assisting me.

Again I point out that your problem is not this circumstance but that I frankly have published Smirf's usage in my profile. So following your arguments would not create a kind of "cleanroom", but instead a scene of players using hidden all kind of assistance instead of being able to freely provide open information on that.

And because Smirf will have its defined strength it is not necessary to exclude me / Smirf from being rated.

EdTrice: I think what has made many upset is the fact that they are now playing against "a machine" without being told - and if they knew before they joined the tournament that they would be playing against a computer - it may be a little different.

I don't see a problem with him using his SMIRF program IF everyone he plays knows about it before hand - and actually the games should also be non-rated also - otherwise it will cheat not only who plays against him, but also everyone else who has a rating.

Andersp: Can't we have exceptions on a tournament by tournament basis? Everyone knows of the experimental S.M.I.R.F. program, and Reinhardt is just trying to improve it by testing it on others.

It's not like he is being subterranean with his intentions.

harley: I agree ..the problem is not if Chessmaster or Trice can beat a chesscomputer or if Trice wants to pay money if a computer wins his tourney.
The problem is that IF Fencer says OK to one engine he has to say OK to all.

Ed, it wasn't because you posted, it was just that your post was more chess orientated, talking about specific chess moves, rather than just programmes and cheating in general that was being discussed before.

Stevie, there are 7 global mods, choose a different one to complain to.

Stevie: That's easy: try another glob mod...

EdTrice: Ed it wasnt personal, i suggested it before you joined in also

It mentions to go to glob mods when you have a problem with a moderator.
What abouut if your problem is a glob mod who has a vendetta against you?

Well, before I posted, everyone was allowed to debate that topic here. The list of commenters included Sumerian, Caissus, CzuchCheckers, RedSales, BBW, Hrqls, ScarletRose, and the list goes on.

As soon as I post, it is "off topic" according to Stevie.

Can someone please explain this?

Chessmaster1000:
I agree with you completely!

shhhhhhhh Purps, no one asked you
Its been chess discussion all along if you ask me.

I think Harley has finally agreed anyways

Shouldn't Harley or Flooz re-direct if they think this is on the wrong DB?

Its definitely veered towards chess discussion!

Stevie: FEEL BETTER

How was that for a shout?

EdTrice, Computer vs. Human could be an interesting topic on the Debate board.

EdTrice:

Thetype of game does not matter: chess, checkers, Gothic Chess. A good player with the proper motivation using this technique will never be defeated by a computer, and he can also beat a computer in this fashion.

If you mean ONLY correspondence games then:

At Chess: a good player with the proper motivation can beat the computer (meaning the top one's) rather enough times, can be beaten enough times and draws will occur most of the times.......

At Gothic Chess: a good player with the proper motivation can beat the computer (meaning the top one's= G.V) most of the time, can be beaten rather seldom and can draw few times.........

At Checkers: i have no idea about Checkers...........

If you mean long(classic) time controls games then:

At Chess: ONLY the top players in the world can beat the computer (meaning the top one's). And i mean not in a single game out of 10, but in a match of 8 and more. Right noe the battle is equal .

At Gothic Chess: a good Chess player can beat with great difficulty the computer (meaning the top one's= G.V).

If you mean short or blitz time controls games then:

At Chess: NOBODY in the galaxy can beat the computer (meaning the top one's and not only). It's already difficult to take just one game out of 8 or more, so no thinking about winning..........

At Gothic Chess: a good Chess player can't beat the computer (meaning the top one's= G.V). He can take some games or draws but beating it is too tough.......!


At fast time controls, like game in 10 mins or faster, Vortex kills me. At time controls slower than game in 2 hours, there is no program that can win against ANY strong willed player of skill.

Do you mean of course Gothic Chess program and not Chess program.......


This has been well documented in the chess playing community for decades. Strong correspondence players still outperform computers.

The word still is critical. It shows that the gap is closing.......In my opinion we may be to the point that computers are starting to surpass us at correspondence also. Perhaps not yet, but it's close.....

come on..surely this does belong elsewhere by now????????????????

Take a look at this game, between ChessCarpenter and myself, played on the CowPlay.com website at the end of 2004:

http://www.gothicchess.org/gotm_2004_10/game.htm

Now fast forward to my 14th move as black.

14...h5 looks to be an error as it lets my knight
be taken. It looks like I gave up my knight for "no reason".

This was a strategic trap to bait the white
archbishop to attack in a sector of the board where it would soon be out of play and useless.

While still down material, I was able to open up the center and get his king in trouble. No matter how he decided to deal with my advanced pawn, taking it would spell disaster, and not taking it only delayed the invevitable.

This type of "look ahead thinking" is far beyond the search horizon of a computer. In fact, if you replay some of ChessCarpenter's moves as white, Gothic Vortex will make similar moves, taking the material (my knight) without understanding the "big picture".

Vortex thought white was winning from move 14 onward, and I would play that position against any program on the planet and be able to win it.

Again, I mention this because some people's posts on here seem to think I use Gothic Vortex when I play on here. Nothing is farther from the truth.

At fast time controls, like game in 10 mins or faster, Vortex kills me. At time controls slower than game in 2 hours, there is no program that can win against ANY strong willed player of skill.

This has been well documented in the chess playing community for decades. Strong correspondence players still outperform computers.

I have read quite a few posts about Sumerian, the S.M.I.R.F. program, the topic of the prize money, and the numerous comments about "cheating".

First, I am happy to pay Reinhard the $25 for winning his section. If you divide this by all of the hours he has put into his program, this is really pennies per hour.

Second, I get the sense that some people think programs are really invincible. This is clearly not the case, even if you let them think for days on end.

I have played a Janus game against Caissus where I had a mate in 27. It took me about 6 hours to go through it all and verify it before I sacrificed first my knight, then my janus (Archbishop).

I play on two boards. One has the current position, the other is how I analyze.

I play every move of every game down to the endgame before I make a move.

You get much more insight into the game that way than any computer program can provide.

Thetype of game does not matter: chess, checkers, Gothic Chess. A good player with the proper motivation using this technique will never be defeated by a computer, and he can also beat a computer in this fashion.

In my Gothic Chess game against WhiteShark, I was able to announce mate in 31. It required sacrificing a Chancellor for an Archbishop, then losing a Knight for just a pawn very early in the game!


I could let Gothic Vortex search for 6 months and it would not make these moves.

Just something to consider.

Skyking: Its been discussed on the pond board Skyking..take a peek