Author: Amir Ban
Date: 15:30:29 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 07:36:14, Darse Billings wrote: > >I have been asked to contribute my views regarding the Shredder vs >Jonny game in Graz. (I was in Graz during the WCCC, and I've been >involved in similar 3-fold repetition situations in the Computer >Olympiad. FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded >by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director.) > > http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1335 > >This is an interesting situation, but the ruling was entirely correct. > >The actual circumstances made the decision clear. Anyone who cannot >see this needs to check their logic or their knowledge of the rules. > >The hypothetical issue is more interesting: whether the operator has >the right to decline an opportunity to draw. > >Some people have asserted that the operator does not have that right. >They are wrong. > >Since the operator is given the right to claim a draw on behalf of >the program, the natural corollary is that it is *not obligatory* >for the operator to do so. Note that this discretionary privilege >can also lead to a *win* for the operator's program. The operator >is *not* a completely passive entity, nor has that ever been the >case in computer chess competitions. > >The rule in question dates back to a previous era when computer chess >was a friendly competition between gentlemen. If that is no longer >desirable, then the whole process of claiming a draw (as well as >resigning on behalf of the program) must be revisited, and be taken >out of the hands of the operator. > >The exact procedure for claiming a draw by 3-fold repetition is >covered in the FIDE rules. If a program follows those steps, then >the operator has no say in the matter. Most programmers have better >things to do than encoding every niggling detail of the FIDE rules >(which were developed for human players). > >Personally, I prefer to allow the programmer to do what he believes >to be right. If I were the arbiter, I would rule accordingly. If a >third party suggested or demanded that a programmer do something he >believes to be less than honourable, I would hope it was a bad joke, >and would dismiss it summarily. > >It is a sad statement that some non-cooperative participants prefer >to use the rules as a weapon, forcing increasingly complex rules to >handle minor quibbles (which is an impossible task in the limit; at >some point judgement and reason must come into play). > >Regardless, the case at hand is clear and unambiguous: Jonny did not >follow the exact steps for claiming a draw, and the operator's choice >to continue the game was legal. Those who have criticized the ICGA >on this matter should rethink their position. > >As a side note, this situation would not have arisen if the programs >were required to use a direct communication protocol, like that used >for Go competitions. We could also dispense with the physical clocks, >leaving the time enforcement (and other technical details, like draw >claims) to a referee program in the middle. This places a greater >burden on the programmer to satisfy the protocol, and I wouldn't >recommend it for friendly events like the Computer Olympiad, but >it is long overdue for the World Computer Chess Championship. > > - Darse. You shed no new light and introduce no new viewpoint, so your entire post is redundant. In addition, although you were in Graz, you seem to be unaware of the details of what happened, and base yourself entirely on the Chessbase story. It appears that the entire thing hinged on the freak fact that the TD did not understand Zwanzger when he asked permission to continue, and that this misunderstanding persisted right through the final decision. So Zwanzger himself thought he needed permission to do what he did, and does not share your opinion of the latitude he has. The TD told me that had he understood the request, he would have denied it, contrary to your utter derision of such a choice. In computer chess, we do not allow operators to throw games, or to act in any way except in the best interest of their program. At the end, the decision (back-engineered to suit what was revealed after it was made) means that since improper conduct was not stopped in time, there's no choice but to allow its result to stand. I hope you don't apply this principle in any tournament you direct. Amir
This page took 0.01 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.