Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:53:15 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 18:29:27, Amir Ban wrote: >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 Ok so most of it seems to have at least been "open" although certainly somewhat deranged. :)
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.