Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:02:46 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 12:16:09, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 11:08:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 01, 2003 at 00:56:26, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 2003 at 21:47:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 30, 2003 at 19:05:56, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 30, 2003 at 12:45:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 30, 2003 at 11:50:12, Andreas Schwartmann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I wonder what would have happened, if not Shredder was the one in favor of >>>>>>>yesterday's break of rules, but e.g. List. In that case, the result of the game >>>>>>>would have been overturned into the draw it really was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But ... when it comes to rules and when to cling to them, it's always a matter >>>>>>>of understanding ... the dutch TD Hering did not really understand Johnny's >>>>>>>operator's question ... maybe they should provide hearing aids next time ... The >>>>>>>ICGA reminds me of the IOC ... incompetence and bias all the way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And: If not Fritz but Diep or Sjeng were to be denied the title of world >>>>>>>champion in that way, there would be lots of protests against the decision to >>>>>>>overrule Johnny's draw reclamation. But CB obviously did not mind, since >>>>>>>Shredder and Fritz are both CB horses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's sad. Shredder is NOT the legitimate champion. This tourney result is just >>>>>>>a big joke. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Andreas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Did Shredder win the playoff? If so this is about the most ridiculous WCCC >>>>>>final result I have ever heard of. >>>>>> >>>>>>By the way, calling this set of people/circumstances "incompetent" really >>>>>>is an insult to all the really incompetent people around the world... I would >>>>>>certainly be embarassed to claim the title "2003 WCCC champion" myself.. Had >>>>>>I won it under these circumstances.. >>>>> >>>>>I can't believe you're saying this Robert, and I don't concur with your >>>>>assessment. >>>>> >>>>>What would you have the ICGA do? >>>>> >>>>>The draw can't be ligitimized, by the FIDE rules, so why here? Jonny should have >>>>>resigned much earlier and stopped this embarrassing situation from taking place. >>>>> >>>>>Terry >>>> >>>> >>>>What in the name of heaven are you talking about? >>>> >>>>The program claimed a draw and told the operator what move it would make >>>>to repeat the position. >>>> >>>>The computer is playing using blind chess rules, which means it has a human >>>>proxy that relays its moves to the board. The rules _clearly_ say that if >>>>the human makes a mistake, the game backs up to that point (of the mistake) >>>>and resumes from that point. >>>> >>>>The point in that is obvious. This is a match between two computer programs, >>>>communicating in the most stupid way possible because the ICCA simply refuses >>>>to do as we have done in the CCT event and use automatic interfaces to eliminate >>>>humans. The human _must_ do what the computer says do. This operator chose >>>>to not do that. The game was a draw. There is no other conclusion that can >>>>be reached according to the rules we have been using for computer chess >>>>tournaments for 34 years... >>>> >>>>So your logic simply escapes me. You are mixing FIDE rules with computer >>>>chess events. The two are not related. Computers can't make moves, call over >>>>a TD, hit the clock, write the moves down, etc. So the rules were specifically >>>>formulated to address that "difference". Except that the TD for this event >>>>seems to have forgotten about it... >>> >>>Well if that is the case, then it wasn't the TD's fault or the ICGA, it was the >>>operator's and the authors fault. It's that simple! >>> >> >>Correct when mentioning the operator. And according to the ICCA rules, >>when the operator makes a mistake, the game backs up to that point and >>is replayed with the error corrected. In this case correcting the >>operator error results in a dead draw. >> >> >>>I guess the ICGA should consider automatic interfaces. >> >> >>You think? This has been suggested for 25 years now. :) >> >>> >>>Things like this happen and in human tournaments as well, why get bent out of >>>shape over it? >> >>(1) this changed the tournament result, unfairly. Bugs happen. they get >>penalized. But not here. >> >>(2) rules are rules. The first computer chess tournament was held in 1970. >>The rules have been fine-tuned here and there but the basic idea of operator >>passivity has been there from day one. This violated that basic idea. >> >>> >>>Put the blame where it lies, with the operator and author. >> >>But the operator "doesn't exist" by the computer chess rules. If he screws >>up the game backs up to the error and resumes with the correct position. The >>operator can't do anything once the game starts, except what the program >>directs him to do. The program said "3-fold repetition". The operator is >>bound to inform the TD that the game has been drawn. >> >>> >>>If it's not an automatic call then after this screw up, I can hardly say Jonny >>>drew nor would I give a draw in this case unless it was brought to my attention. >> >>If you were the TD you would have no choice but to say "this was a draw." >>The program claimed it. The operator can't overrule the program, per the >>rules. > >One hitch, and it goes for computers too, you can't play the move first then >claim the draw. But no programme works that way AFAIK. They make the move and >display 3rd Reapeat. > >That should be changed. I don't consider that a problem. For example, do you know whether Johnny played the move first or after the pop-up? How do you know? You can't use the position on the screen to determine that. Therefore, the only way to know would be to watch. I'll bet you any amount of money you want that I can take the machine in my office and change two lines on the screen and you can't tell which was changed _first_. So you can't use the position on the screen, since the pop-up might appear above or below the "my move is" on the screen. You can't use your eyes to see which came first. What is left? Just what we have today... And it has always worked just fine. >> >> >>> >>>Also Shredder had a 10.00 plus score and I believe a mate at the time, and why >>>Jonny played on doesn't make sense. >> >>For this _very_ reason. Bugs happen. All the time. +10 does not >>guarantee a win, in computer chess events. This is but one of many >>examples. >> >>> >>>It's all too bad, but hey these things happen, from time to time. >>> >>>Don't you think that this gave concern for the ICGA as well? >> >>Frankly, no. >> >> >>> >>>Terry > >I'm not as sure as you. I'm not a mind reader. When someone makes a decision this bad, I'm not sure there is anything there to read. :)
This page took 0 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.