Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:27:50 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 23:17:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. It did win, and by the time anyone knew about the repitition it was too late. Time to learn from the experience and move on. > > >>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.