Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:50:53 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 07:53:51, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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. >> >>The hypothetical issue is more interesting: whether the operator has >>the right to decline an opportunity to draw. >> >>Some people have asserted that the operator does not have that right. >>They are wrong. >> >>Since the operator is given the right to claim a draw on behalf of >>the program, the natural corollary is that it is *not obligatory* >>for the operator to do so. Note that this discretionary privilege >>can also lead to a *win* for the operator's program. The operator >>is *not* a completely passive entity, nor has that ever been the >>case in computer chess competitions. >> >>The rule in question dates back to a previous era when computer chess >>was a friendly competition between gentlemen. If that is no longer >>desirable, then the whole process of claiming a draw (as well as >>resigning on behalf of the program) must be revisited, and be taken >>out of the hands of the operator. >> >>The exact procedure for claiming a draw by 3-fold repetition is >>covered in the FIDE rules. If a program follows those steps, then >>the operator has no say in the matter. Most programmers have better >>things to do than encoding every niggling detail of the FIDE rules >>(which were developed for human players). >> >>Personally, I prefer to allow the programmer to do what he believes >>to be right. If I were the arbiter, I would rule accordingly. If a >>third party suggested or demanded that a programmer do something he >>believes to be less than honourable, I would hope it was a bad joke, >>and would dismiss it summarily. >> >>It is a sad statement that some non-cooperative participants prefer >>to use the rules as a weapon, forcing increasingly complex rules to >>handle minor quibbles (which is an impossible task in the limit; at >>some point judgement and reason must come into play). >> >>Regardless, the case at hand is clear and unambiguous: Jonny did not >>follow the exact steps for claiming a draw, and the operator's choice >>to continue the game was legal. Those who have criticized the ICGA >>on this matter should rethink their position. >> >>As a side note, this situation would not have arisen if the programs >>were required to use a direct communication protocol, like that used >>for Go competitions. We could also dispense with the physical clocks, >>leaving the time enforcement (and other technical details, like draw >>claims) to a referee program in the middle. This places a greater >>burden on the programmer to satisfy the protocol, and I wouldn't >>recommend it for friendly events like the Computer Olympiad, but >>it is long overdue for the World Computer Chess Championship. >> >> - Darse. > >Hi, > >I fully agree. >This was what I tried to tell to the people in this forum, too. >I was not in Graz, but I know Stefan is a most correct player and programmer, so >I have full trust him to do the right thing. >I must also say that some people in this forum really really disappointed me a >lot as they are not sportive at all (in my opionion) and too easy to criticize. >Luckily they are not all, so I will continuo to read posts in this forum. > >I like to challenge myself, but to do it within the rules and respecting the >opponents as well. > >Too many people here have the really bad habit to offend other people if they >think different... > >Thanks Darse...I think this was needed to open somebody's eyes... > >Sandro This doesn't open _any_ eyes. FIDE rules do not override specific computer chess rules adopted for the tournament, specifically the rule about the operator's role in the game, which does _not_ include any "decision-making" ability.
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.