Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:20:06 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 14:52:45, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 13:27:43, Robert Hyatt 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", I agree with the ICGA decision. >> >>I don't have any idea what you mean. "rules are rules". The rule about >>no operator interference has been present since the first tournament, and >>it has been enforced in every event I have ever attended. Until now. >> >>> >>>I looked at it from all angles, and it's crystal clear that the ruling for >>>continuing the game was the correct one. >>> >>>The tournament was _not_ automated, and IMO shouldn't be, people have the final >>>word, _not_ machines. >>> >> >>Poppycock. Then why call it "the world computer chess championship". Why >>not "the world advanced chess championship" where "advanced" means "computer >>+ human assistant". The spirit of these competitions has _always_ been that >>the competition is between the two computers. The human operators were >>required simply to allow the two programs to communicate over the real >>chess board. Otherwise why the _explicit_ rules enumerating what the operator >>can do? Hint: The operator does not get to override a decision made by the >>computer. >> >> >> >> >>>When a machine can actually decide for itself, which it can't then the human can >>>and should. >> >>I have no idea what you mean. The machine "did" decide that the position was >>a draw by repetition, and _clearly_ stated this. The operator chose to ignore >>it. That is _not_ the same thing as you are suggesting. The computer is >>responsible for _everything_. How long to think. Which book move to >>choose. Etc. The operator is "out of the loop" for all decision-making. >> >> >No! The Machine Didn't Make A Draw Claim, By Repitition!! > >If you don't understand what I mean, why argue? Tis not I that don't understand the idea that if a window pops up and says "3-fold repetition detected", the thing has noticed that playing the move given repeats the position for the 3rd time, which _is_ a draw. What exact words does it have to use? I have been at FIDE events. I have _never_ seen consistent wording for draw claims. "this is a draw" is good enough for any TD I have seen. Or "this is a 3-repeat". There is no need to say "I claim this is a 3-repeat"... The statement from the chess program was clear, concise, and good enough. >> >> >>> >>>It was a "machine" decision, to foul up a won game, and humans said no! >> >>It was a game between two machines. Should someone have told Kasparov >>when he made his move against Fritz "Hey, take that back, that loses >>immediately?" > >Not the same thing, and I don't think it wise to elevate machines over man! >> >>Computers _and_ humans are both capable of making errors in a game of >>chess. > >No kidding, and your point? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Actually there were two "machine" decisions that were fouled up, one from Jonny, >>>incomplete, as it didn't know the 3 move rule draw, and 0.00 doesn't cut it, and >>>the of course the horrible glitch in an overwhelming won position by Shredder. >>> >> >> >>Jonny had no "glitch". The engine said 0.00. It _did_ detect two-fold >>repetition and that's enough to play the game correctly. >> >> >> >>>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! >> >>That will _never_ be rectified. It was changed once, and then changed back. >>It will never go back to > 50 moves again, I am sure. > >Well on second thought, maybe the machine in this case anyways, should be >listened to! > >But for practical reasons it should be no more than 75-100 moves for a human >unless otherwise stated. It will never be changed. Humans make that rule. > >Computers which "know" book wins should be allowed to use them, no limit! fine in theory, but it won't happen. It did many years ago but the rule was rescinded by popular demand of IM/GM players.
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.