Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:56:59 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 16:26:25, Terry McCracken wrote: >Snip....for space:) >>> >>>One hitch, and it goes for computers too, you can't play the move first then >>>claim the draw. But no programme works that way AFAIK. They make the move and >>>display 3rd Reapeat. >>> >>>That should be changed. >> >>I don't consider that a problem. For example, do you know whether Johnny >>played the move first or after the pop-up? How do you know? You can't use >>the position on the screen to determine that. Therefore, the only way to >>know would be to watch. I'll bet you any amount of money you want that I >>can take the machine in my office and change two lines on the screen and >>you can't tell which was changed _first_. So you can't use the position >>on the screen, since the pop-up might appear above or below the "my move >>is" on the screen. You can't use your eyes to see which came first. What >>is left? >> >>Just what we have today... And it has always worked just fine. > > The move was made on the board, so it nullifies what all this. No it doesn't. Please see the ICGA tournament rules. What you are saying is true in FIDE human events. But not in ICGA computer events. The human is supposed to have zero influence on the outcome of any game. If we adopt your stand, a human _did_ affect not only a single game, but the final standings for the entire tournament. And suddenly it is no longer just the WCCC event. It is the WCCC event with human interference. > >The problem IMO is with the (Jonny people) rather than the TD's or ICGA. The problem started with the Johnny operator, for certain. But he violated a standard rule. And then the problem was transferred to the ICGA because they had a remedy they could have applied, but they chose to run and hide and let the interference stand. > >Nothing can be done about now, and if the (Jonny people) did what they were >suppose to do, then this mess would have been averted. Hey, I'm not too happy >about all this either. But if, after the fact, I'd rule in Shredders favour >unless this was delt right by the (Jonny people) instead:) The point is that the two computers should have resolved this over the board. They did. They reached an absolute draw. The humans chose to ignore than and play on. That's simply a no-no... > > >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Also Shredder had a 10.00 plus score and I believe a mate at the time, and why >>>>>Jonny played on doesn't make sense. >>>> >>>>For this _very_ reason. Bugs happen. All the time. +10 does not >>>>guarantee a win, in computer chess events. This is but one of many >>>>examples. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's all too bad, but hey these things happen, from time to time. >>>>> >>>>>Don't you think that this gave concern for the ICGA as well? >>>> >>>>Frankly, no. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Terry >>> >>>I'm not as sure as you. I'm not a mind reader. >> >>When someone makes a decision this bad, I'm not sure there is anything >>there to read. :) > > >Now that's not nice!:) > >BTW you defended ICGA ruling at first when List was banned, you also said you >hadn't enough info to draw a conclusion, why the change of heart? > >Do you know something different now? I didn't defend their decision. I defended their right to make a decision. But after thinking about it, I believe that the action taken was not necessarily the best, whether list is a clone or not. It had already played several opponents and beaten/drawn some. The rest that would have had to fight this fairly strong opponent got easy 1-0's when others did not. That skews the final standings. If the first N wins and draws count, then the program should play on but just not be able to win any title nor be listed in the final standing. As it is, the numbers are marred by this. Another choice would be to change all the wins and draws to losses, but then that invalidates some of the pairings. With so many rounds (16 players needs 4 rounds to get a winner, they played 11 total) they could have ignored the potential pairing problems since the rounds were already played. IE let it finish, or forfeit it in all rounds already played as well. But not leave it hanging as they did. As far as how they handled the rest of that issue, I am fairly neutral. They have hurt his reputation. But he hurt it by not responding to them in a way consistent with the rules he agreed to play by. But the decision to withdraw the thing in the middle was the part that was really bad. > >Terry
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.