Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:15:11 11/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2001 at 01:11:28, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Bob, > >>Actually there is. The rule used to say "the operator can adjust the time >>by entering the current chess clock time left, _if_ the program requests this >>information." > >Well, Bob, there are rules and it's up to the players how strict to use those >rules - I wouldn't feel good to win because of time lost of the opponent in >unclear situation... maybe I am to idealistic or what ? I have bent rules for opponents myself in ACM events. I posted one example on r.g.c.c yesterday in fact. But the rules _are_ made for a purpose, and the main purpose is to avoid outside intervention in a game while it is in progress. The ICCA and ACM rules specifically lay out what an operator can and can't do. And "rebooting" at random times is _not_ one of the things that is allowed. It is too easy to solve that problem _before_ showing up at a chess event, so that solving it _at_ the event doesn't become a critical decision that has to be made quickly. I won't _ever_ ask to restart my program unless it is crystal clear that the computer has crashed. If the program hangs, that is tough luck and I simply lose on time, because I showed up at the event with a serious bug. The rules have always allowed us to stop the clocks to check out a hardware problem and fix it if possible. We are allowed up to two 20 minute time-outs in fact, by the old ACM/ICCA rules I played under for many years. After that, you lose on time, unless you can prove the problem is in the communication between you and your remote computer, assuming you are using remote access. If your program hangs, your flag falls. Plain and simple. And for that reason, among many others, allowing a restart of _everything_ just to set the clock is not a reasonable fix for a design problem that should have been addressed prior to round 1 of the tournament. > >>I think that is too intrusive into the match. No telling what will get lost >>by the engine getting restarted, and whether or not that will influence the >>game in any way. IE it is pondering and finds a good move quickly, but >>after a long search it changes to a bad move. I restart to set the clock, >>and wipe out that long ponder search result to get a better move. That is just >>too big a loophole, not that anyone I know would actually do it. But the >>mere possibility is too much to take a chance on... > >well, you always think that everybody want to get something in favour of himself >out of such situations. Is the world that bad ? So far I know most programmers >like a little family - very fair to each other as long there is no commercial >issue behind. (And even then most of them act very fair) >Maybe Ed's idea is the way how it must be done - allow only one time correction >at move 60 and the engine must directly ask for it. And only in special >situations the Arbiter can allow a second one... It's a shame that such strict >rules are needed - all I and most of us want to see is just the engines >playing... I remember the game Tao - Quark from this spring, Quark fall in an >opening trap - Bas was not that happy with that win because he also want to see >his engine playing... he got a point, but for him and most of the amateurs there >are more important things in those tourneys then getting a simple point... We >all want to win, I think, but not on any price. Seems that some thinks >different. When I read those shameful behaviour Ed describes in his posting I am >really unhappy about what is going on here... > I _never_ think that _everybody_ is trying to gain an unfair advantage. But _some_ certainly do try and the rules are made to prohibit this as much as possible. The best solution is a robotic interface. Everybody can still show up and watch, but once the game starts, the humans are _totally_ removed from the procedure. Moves are relayed automatically thru a third party (like a local chess server, for example, since now all programs are able to play on ICC). No human hands in the mix, no outside intervention, no errors, no move takebacks, no arguments about "hey, you made the wrong move, I entered it, and now you take it back and change it. I lost all my pondering stuff..." It would certainly solve a lot of problems without introducing any new ones. No lost time from operators. No clock synchronization since the server would maintain the time electronically. Seems like a reasonable idea. A simple laptop with linux and the FICS code would do the trick. A NIC for the laptop, a switch/hub for everyone to connect to, and a NIC for each competitor and the world would be much simpler for the TD. >Greets, Thomas
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.