Author: Amir Ban
Date: 15:29:27 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 17:35:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 15:47:30, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On December 01, 2003 at 07:21:10, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>> >>>So you are claiming that since we did not see the 3 moves repetition and since >>>our opponent did not claim the draw which he could do. >>>Pls. note that this in chess games is an option and not forced. I think it >>>should be the same with the computer too. Chess is the human way to play it and >>>not otherwise. The computers should do the same and not have different rules. >>>However what the federation states for me is fine. >>>Then since our opponent did not request the draw repetions we should have stop >>>the game? >>>This is pure nonsense!! >>>Next step would be to advise the opponent not to make specific moves to avoid >>>mate in x moves? >>> >>>I agree we should change the rules to make tham more clear to avoid these >>>problems, but we should ALSO LET THE PROGRAM RESIGN BEFORE THE REACH POSITIONS >>>EVEN MY CAT CAN WIN! >>> >> >>The main issue here was not at all technical. >> >>All that you say, could be argued (not very convincingly) if Jonny tried to >>claim a draw but made a technical error in doing that. >> >>However, the fact is that he did not want to claim the draw, for a reason that >>amounts to improper conduct. >> >>I accept that this was not cheating, but based on nobler motives. Nevertheless >>it was improper conduct, and not something we allow in computer tournaments. >> >>It goes without saying that the outcome of improper conduct should not be >>allowed to stand. >> >>To me the most troubling part of the decision was that the decision was not >>changed after Johannes admitted his intentions. The TD said that this does not >>change the technical sequence of events, so the result stays. >> >>This turned nonsense into bad nonsense, and a dangerous precedent. It means that >>if an operator conspires to lose to an opponent, say by playing losing opening >>lines, it will not be possible to annul the result when this is discovered, >>because checkmate is checkmate and what can be done ? >> >>Amir > >Were you there when this went on? IE was the discussion about what >happened, the ICGA's internal reasoning (along with the TD) done in >public, etc? I was at the next table, playing Chinito. I posted here what happened. > >We have had a couple of issues in past ACM events, but they were resolved >in an open discussion with programmers, ACM people, organizing people, >the TD, and knowledgeable outsiders such as Hal Bogner, an international >Arbiter, plus some GM players that are attending and watching. When something >is done in "daylight" it leaves a better taste even with those that were harmed. >If it was done in "dark of night" where nobody knows all that was discussed >or why, then it leaves a bad taste with _everybody_... > >Which of those two best describes this debacle??? This cannot be a democratic decision, but Jaap and David Levy talked to several people and allowed themselves to be approached. The decision was taken by the TD Jaap with David Levy and Ernst Heinz, after which Levy wrote up the decision and they had a meeting to announce and discuss. They still missed through this the crucial fact that Zwanzger did not want the draw, although I and others in the hall knew it. It dawned on them only when Zwanzger said so in the meeting. At that late stage with the decision already announced as final they had to make some lame excuse why it doesn't change anything. The silly engine-interface dichotomy that is so seriously discussed here never came into consideration. It's clear to me that their decision was based on their conversations with the Fritz people, who told them they would not appeal any decision and don't mind having a playoff. I, too, told Levy that the decision is wrong, but I will not appeal. Amir
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.