Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:25:55 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 07:36:14, Darse Billings wrote: > >I have been asked to contribute my views regarding the Shredder vs >Jonny game in Graz. (I was in Graz during the WCCC, and I've been >involved in similar 3-fold repetition situations in the Computer >Olympiad. FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded >by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director.) > > http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1335 > >This is an interesting situation, but the ruling was entirely correct. > >The actual circumstances made the decision clear. Anyone who cannot >see this needs to check their logic or their knowledge of the rules. You're being to hung up in FIDE rules. I think the logic is quite clear, Jonny lost on purpose because he didn't feel Shredder should lose the WCCC due to a silly bug: "Apparently the Shredder interface contained a bug which allowed it to repeat postitions in a totally winning position. The program Jonny had seen this and claimed the draw (while displaying a 0.00 score). But as Johannes Zwanzger later said on the Playchess.com server: "I did not want to draw the game in this way against Stefan, just because his program has a bug." So he had simply executed the move on the board, entered Shredder's reply and continued with the game." So basicly "Jonny" (the engine) saw Shredder had bugged out and instantly punished it by going for the repetition. I don't see how you can allow an operator to throw his own game and thereby affect the championship! Certainly he acted like a gentleman, but he should have been forced to behave like a fiercesome competitor. I don't like the preccdence this creates, are we now all expected to be gentlemen and give away the win when an engine is stronger but buggy? Bugs are part of the game, IMO. -S.
This page took 0.05 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.