Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:18:22 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 01:00:44, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 10, 2003 at 22:44:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 10, 2003 at 19:54:43, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2003 at 17:40:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2003 at 08:22:22, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 03:22:44, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 21:18:39, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You've started what has turned out to be an enormous thread, and you've openly >>>>>>>stated your credentials in doing so. Reading the responses, my sympathies lie >>>>>>>with the other posters. I would like to ask, however, that you defend your >>>>>>>perspective. If you truly believe that those who disagree need to reexamine the >>>>>>>rules or their own logic, this shouldn't be hard to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Roger >>>>>> >>>>>>Perhaps after reading the responses he realizes he's wrong. :) >>>>>> >>>>>>-Peter >>>>> >>>>>I doubt it. He posted due to a request, and wasn't intending to fight about it. >>>>>Besides, he's been treated with contempt! Why should he be bothered to reply, >>>>>only to be attacked by a pack of wolves? >>>>> >>>>>Terry >>>> >>>> >>>>He was attacked with facts and experience. I suspect he recognizes the concept >>>>of "untenable position" pretty well... >>> >>>The _key_ word here is _attacked_ and that isn't the correct way to present your >>>facts. It's insultive, and I doubt he intented to argue regardless of how the >>>facts were presented. >>> >>>Although, I have no doubt he could make strong arguements that would have led to >>>the suffocation of the board. So what we be the point? >> >> >>_I_ did not attack anyone. So I don't know what you are talking about. > >You were not too friendly to say the least, and others were worse. Look at my original post in response to his. There was nothing friendly or unfriendly about it. I simply pointed out flaws in his understanding of the rules being used, as well as flaws in his understanding of circumstances surrounding the event. > > He >>presented a conclusion that was mired in inaccuracies and bad assumptions >>(He assumed FIDE rules were used when they are not.) His errors were pointed >>out by me and several others. > >Yes, most who don't know a tenth what he knows! BTW the FIDE Rules should be >enforced, and since they aren't in all situations, this should be changed. FIDE rules can't possibly apply in all cases. The computer can not call the TD over. It can't write rules down on a scoresheet. It can't move the pieces nor touch the clock. The rules for these issues have been around for 35 years now. > >If he made an error it was within the context of the ICGA rules. He's right >about the CC Olympiad. He's an expert at the highest level as a TD. >BTW did you check his credentials? He's no rookie, he's had plenty of >experience. Experience in _HUMAN_ events does not apply here. This is computer chess. I have directed _many_ human events. Fortunately I have been involved with many computer events, which he has not. > >He really does know what he can and can't do. > >He's a programmer like yourself, and has developed Poki, the worlds top Poker >Programme, and he is computer scientist with a PHD and to top it off a Canidate >Master, who has arbitrated many high level tournaments, including computer >chess. What computer chess events? None that I know of. IE none of the ICCA/ICGA/ACM events, nor the Dutch tournaments, etc. > >If he had caught the error himself, he would have called Shredder vs Jonny a >draw, unless the ICGA said differently. That is not what he said. Re-read his post. It was wrong. > >But he pointed out that 3rd repeat does not have to be a draw, however in the >case of ICGA he normally wouldn't have the right to ignore the proplem or make >an official decision on his own to say play on. But since the game wasn't caught >in time he can rule with the body of the ICGA, if everyone is compliant to say >the win stands, which apperently he and they and all the rest were. The decision was wrong. It was wrong during the game, it was wrong after the game. It could have been corrected at any point. It could _still_ be corrected... >In cases where there is really big problems, he's right that as an arbitor >he does have a say, even in the ICGA if the ICGA allows him to exert his >authority. > >However, this can be argued till the Cows Come Home. >> >>He should hardly expect to waltz in, make some comments that are really not >>relevant to what we are talking about, and waltz out without any counterpoints >>being made. > >He sure can, if he was asked to post the ICGA decision! And he did! And he was wrong... > >As far as FIDE Rules are concerned, he can enforce them and if Computer Chess is >exempt from FIDE Rules, that should change as of now! There is no "if". You have to first be involved in an event with computers to understand why FIDE rules don't fit everywhere. Most do. But the ICGA has made exceptions where appropriate, for good reason. If he doesn't know what those exceptions are, and why they were made, that is hardly my problem. > >It's absurd that a computer can't be subjected to the Official Rules of Chess! Why don't you first think about the problems? Computers are _not_ humans. > >Third Repeat is the most tricky rule in chess and isn't mandatory, unless the >draw is claimed. For computers this hasn't been addressed properly within the >ICGA. The draw was claimed as well as a computer can claim it. The operator chose to ignore the claim and let the opponent win. What would you do if a blind player told his proxy to claim a repetition, but the proxy did not, letting the blind player lose on time? Would _that_ be reasonable? That is what happened in this case... > >Three fold repition of position is IMO the hardest rule to make clear, even more >so than en passant! THe 3-fold repetition is a trivial rule to handle either as a player, or as a TD. > >It's of course optional too, and in this case computers haven't a problem in >this area. It is not optional if the program claims it.
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.