Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:59:44 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 11:12:05, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 09:50:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Some people's *eyes* will forever remain *shut*. When the rules are crystal clear, and haven't changed for _years_. I don't need "open eyes" to recall the rules, nor how they were misapplied in this ridiculous decision...
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.