Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

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.