Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 14:18:02 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 16:56:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 16:26:25, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>Snip....for space:) >>>> >>>>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. >> >> The move was made on the board, so it nullifies what all this. > >No it doesn't. Please see the ICGA tournament rules. What you are saying >is true in FIDE human events. But not in ICGA computer events. The human >is supposed to have zero influence on the outcome of any game. If we adopt >your stand, a human _did_ affect not only a single game, but the final >standings for the entire tournament. And suddenly it is no longer just the >WCCC event. It is the WCCC event with human interference. > >> >>The problem IMO is with the (Jonny people) rather than the TD's or ICGA. > >The problem started with the Johnny operator, for certain. But he violated >a standard rule. And then the problem was transferred to the ICGA because >they had a remedy they could have applied, but they chose to run and hide >and let the interference stand. > > >> >>Nothing can be done about now, and if the (Jonny people) did what they were >>suppose to do, then this mess would have been averted. Hey, I'm not too happy >>about all this either. But if, after the fact, I'd rule in Shredders favour >>unless this was delt right by the (Jonny people) instead:) > >The point is that the two computers should have resolved this over the >board. They did. They reached an absolute draw. The humans chose to >ignore than and play on. That's simply a no-no... > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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. :) >> >> >>Now that's not nice!:) >> >>BTW you defended ICGA ruling at first when List was banned, you also said you >>hadn't enough info to draw a conclusion, why the change of heart? >> >>Do you know something different now? > >I didn't defend their decision. I defended their right to make a decision. >But after thinking about it, I believe that the action taken was not necessarily >the best, whether list is a clone or not. It had already played several >opponents and beaten/drawn some. The rest that would have had to fight this >fairly strong opponent got easy 1-0's when others did not. That skews the >final standings. If the first N wins and draws count, then the program should >play on but just not be able to win any title nor be listed in the final >standing. As it is, the numbers are marred by this. Another choice would >be to change all the wins and draws to losses, but then that invalidates some >of the pairings. With so many rounds (16 players needs 4 rounds to get a >winner, they played 11 total) they could have ignored the potential pairing >problems since the rounds were already played. > >IE let it finish, or forfeit it in all rounds already played as well. But >not leave it hanging as they did. > >As far as how they handled the rest of that issue, I am fairly neutral. They >have hurt his reputation. But he hurt it by not responding to them in a way >consistent with the rules he agreed to play by. But the decision to withdraw >the thing in the middle was the part that was really bad. > > > >> >>Terry Ok, I see why. Yes your points are valid, and this has crossed my mind as well. In this sense I must agree with you. It's really shame all this happened, tainting a very powerful and important tournament. I won't say the tournament is invalid, but marred, yes. I truly feel badly about what happened to the author of List, but understand the disqualification and subsequent banning for 3 years. If he's not guilty of "cloning" (chess programme not people)..;-), then I hope he successfully sues the accuser if it was done with malicious intent. If not, and it was an honest, but stupid mistake, then I don't know what to say. What a mess...*Sigh* Terry
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.