Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:17:27 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 22:50:25, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 22:27:48, Nicholas Cooper wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 20:58:30, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 19:41:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 2003 at 19:14:11, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 18:30:29, Amir Ban 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>You shed no new light and introduce no new viewpoint, so your entire post is >>>>>>redundant. >>>>>> >>>>>>In addition, although you were in Graz, you seem to be unaware of the details of >>>>>>what happened, and base yourself entirely on the Chessbase story. >>>>>> >>>>>>It appears that the entire thing hinged on the freak fact that the TD did not >>>>>>understand Zwanzger when he asked permission to continue, and that this >>>>>>misunderstanding persisted right through the final decision. >>>>>> >>>>>>So Zwanzger himself thought he needed permission to do what he did, and does not >>>>>>share your opinion of the latitude he has. The TD told me that had he understood >>>>>>the request, he would have denied it, contrary to your utter derision of such a >>>>>>choice. >>>>>> >>>>>>In computer chess, we do not allow operators to throw games, or to act in any >>>>>>way except in the best interest of their program. >>>>>> >>>>>>At the end, the decision (back-engineered to suit what was revealed after it was >>>>>>made) means that since improper conduct was not stopped in time, there's no >>>>>>choice but to allow its result to stand. >>>>>> >>>>>>I hope you don't apply this principle in any tournament you direct. >>>>>> >>>>>>Amir >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think he knows a little more about Tournament Directing than you do. >>>>> >>>>>Why don't you investigate his credentials, rather than being rude and sarcastic? >>>>> >>>>>BTW how could this be a misunderstanding to which nothing could be done to >>>>>reverse the decision? >>>>> >>>>>Did Jonny actually claim the draw? Or did it only read out a 0.00 eval? >>>>>That IMO is very important. If Jonny didn't know 3rd repeat rules, then IMO, >>>>>unless the programmer and or operator claim it, then tough luck. >>>> >>>>This has been described N+1 times. Now N+2. The program popped up >>>>a dialog box that said "3-fold repetition detected" or something to that >>>>effect. Before the game could go on, the operator had to click <OK> to >>>>show that he had been informed... >>>> >>>>There is _little_ lattitude with that happening. >>> >>>At this point I want to see the evidence. Is there no concrete records? >> >>Yes, the facts are agreed upon... the only bone of contention is the >>interpretation of the facts... though given the clear state of the rules, I >>can't see what everyone is arguing about?? >> >>>Also what Billing said is true. >>> >>>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. >> >>Have you ever considered that you are the one who needs to rethink your >>position? The rules are based on the principle that the operator is entirely >>passive, so the blatant alteration of the game (and championship) outcome that >>occured because of operator intervention is against the rules, end of story... >>you may not like it but the rules are the rules. > >Apparently, these rules were NOT CLEAR to some of the participants! >Rules are not absolutes, in all cases, and this case is a mess, there can be >no other ruling in this case, it's too late! > >I consider all possibilities, and have come to the most sensible conclusion. >When you and the others can see through all this obfuscation, you'll see why! > >I'm sure if I delve far enough I may find something that vindicates Shredder >completely, and imagine the arguements that would have been made if Jonny drew! >Remeber, Shredder had a Forced Mate, and I'm willing to wager Jonny saw it as >well, before the repeated moves! If that is so, the game should have ended, >unless there was no forced mate, but there was. > Please cite a specific rule that says "If I see I am getting mated, I must resign." I am _always_ free to make you demonstrate that _you_ see the mate and can carry it out to the end. Shredder couldn't. It should not have won. >I'd love to have viewed that game live, with readouts! > >> >>>You say no, but this is a very seasoned TD. I concur at this junction. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm not saying they should throw the game either, but the ICGA IMO judged >>>>>correctly. >>>>> >>>>>Also, if it did claim 3rd repeat it must be claimed before the move is made and >>>>>this should apply to computers as it applies to humans. >>>>> >>>>>Backing it up is also wrong IMO it should be recognized on the spot! >>>>>If a computer can't adhere to FIDE rules, tough. They apply to humans so >>>>>machines IMO can't be exempt! >>>>> >>>>>Terry
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.