Author: Amir Ban
Date: 15:40:11 11/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2003 at 16:21:43, Peter Berger wrote: >On November 29, 2003 at 16:17:07, Jeff Lischer wrote: > >>On November 29, 2003 at 15:22:45, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>Can anybody point out to me an URL of the official rules of the WCCC in Graz. I >>>am not able to find it. I remember, that I had read some official ICGA rules >>>(for earlier tournaments), but cannot find them at the moment, either. >>> >>Is this what you had in mind? >> >>http://www.chess003.at/pdf/info_rules.pdf > >Interesting - so Jonny's author could simply have claimed an operator mistake >according to rule number 5 and the game would have been drawn. > >I wonder why he didn't do this. > >Peter He didn't want to. Here is what happened: In the final phase of the game Shredder, in an easily won position, became indecisive due to bugs, and finally stepped into a three-fold repetition while showing a mate score. On Jonny's screen with the Chessbase interface the threefold repetition message popped-up, and the game was marked as a draw. Jonny's operator realized that Shredder had thrown away the game, and the championship, and out of chivalry did not want to accept that. He went to the TD v.d. Herik and asked for permission to continue playing. However, the TD did not hear or understand the request, and told him to wait until he comes by the board. When he arrived, Jonny had already played the repetition move, and Shredder was pondering. The TD, still thinking that Jonny was trying to claim a draw, ruled that as a move was played the draw cannot be claimed. While the game continued this was discussed by the viewers, and brought again to the attention of the TD, who said he will consider the matter when the game is over. When the game was over, the TD with other ICGA officials questioned the Jonny and Shredder programmers about what had happened, inspected Jonny's chessbase log, and talked to spectator programmers, including myself. Then they ruled the Shredder's win stands, and called a programmer's meeting to announce and explain the decision. At this stage they still were not aware that Jonny's operator wanted to continue rather than claim a draw. However, during the discussion Jonny's operator came on stage and told frankly that his question to the TD when the 3-fold repetition pop-up occurred was whether he is allowed to ignore it and continue. I said at the meeting that in this case the ruling is not valid, because it is not the case that Jonny erred in claiming a draw, but the opposite: the operator did not want to claim it, and this is something he should not be allowed to do. Suppose the TD had understood his question: "I can claim a draw now, but I request permission to go ahead and get mated". The obvious answer by the TD is: "No way. You are not allowed to lose on purpose". The TD, perplexed by this new twist, said that while possibly Jonny's operator may be censured, his intentions do not change the technical chain of events, so the ruling stays. My opinion: In a human game refusing to claim a draw out of chivalry is something that is within the rules. However, in a computer game the operator should not be allowed to make decisions that are against the interests of the program. An equivalent would be an endgame KNP vs. K, where the stronger side, due to a bug, loses the pawn, but the opponent, rather than taking the pawn, chooses to resign. No ICCA TD would allow such a resignation. 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.