Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:38:02 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 13:34:37, Matthew Hull wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 12:54:01, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 11:59:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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... >> >>These rules are not "Etched In Stone", > > >How does one decide that? You don't understand? Too bad. > >> I agree with the ICGA decision. >>I looked at it from all angles, and it's crystal clear that the ruling for >>continuing the game was the correct one. > >I reached the opposite conclusion. No, you just like to argue, it's a sexual power thing, you have going in that so-called "logical mind" of yours. >> >>The tournament was _not_ automated, and IMO shouldn't be, people have the final >>word, _not_ machines. > > >Then if the operator does not like the move his software has indicated, he can >just change it, right? After all, people have the final word, according to you. > Is this rule of yours etched in stone? You failed at the Bar, didn't you? > > >> >>When a machine can actually decide for itself, which it can't then the human can >>and should. > > >The "machine" flagged a three fold repitition. Game over. But as you say, if >the human does not like it that his software flagged the draw, he can just >ignore that. And if the program sees a winning move because the other program >blundered due to a bug, then the operator can override that winning move and >substitue a losing one. After all, the human should have the final word, not >the machine. It's not the software that's playing chess ultimately, its the >operator. (??????????) The computer didn't KNOW it was a 3rd reapeat! > > >> >>It was a "machine" decision, to foul up a won game, and humans said no! > > >The contest was between "machines", not humans. You seem to have forgotten >that. The player is the machine. If the machine fouls up, the machine pays the >price. Game over, dude. Humans build and programme the machines, and intervine when necessary. Maybe we should evacuate Blue Mountain, and let the Machines get the job done!! > >> >>Actually there were two "machine" decisions that were fouled up, one from Jonny, >>incomplete, as it didn't know the 3 move rule draw, > > >The engine and GUI are one. After all, in some engine/GUI combinations, the GUI I didn't say otherwise. You seem to think you know, but you don't know. >actually handles the opening phase of the game. Engine and GUI are the chess >playing software. Your ignoring of the GUI-flagged-reptition is then manifestly >bogus. No your arguement is bogus. If a GUI can play half the moves in a game (the opening), then it can >surely flag repetition draws. The operator can no more ignore that than he can >the GUI decisions about opening moves. It didn't did it?! > > >>and 0.00 doesn't cut it, and >>the of course the horrible glitch in an overwhelming won position by Shredder. > > >Yes. Buggy software should pay the price of it's own bugs. That's part of >computer chess. You snooze, you lose. Same with human blunders. > >IMO, your view on this issue is busted six ways to Sunday. ROTFL! MH Does that mean Mentally Hand.... > >MH > >> >>P.S. The "Fifty Move" rule is another issue which has been mentioned, and it >>must be ratified as there are positions that take over 220 moves to win!
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.