Author: David H. McClain
Date: 04:05:38 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2003 at 18:40:11, Amir Ban wrote: >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 Amir, Than you for finally giving a clear and concise explanation first hand of what happened.
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.