Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:31:24 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 23:15:26, Robert Hyatt 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? > >Define "record"? You think they have a video camera on every game, >recording both screens? Not a bad idea Bob!:o) > > >> >>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. >> > > > >No, it was not done wrong. It is the _operator's_ responsibility to >both make the move _on the board_ and/or claim a draw as directed by >the program. That is the way it is done. It doesn't matter how the >program says to do what. Because, as you have heard, at the current >instant in time, only Crafty is capable of claiming a draw according to >the exact wording in the FIDE rules of chess. I would hardly claim every >other draw claim made in computer events is therefore wrong. > Yes, the operater screwed up, and it falls on his shoulders, it's that simple. Too late to rectify it now. Only learn. > > >>You say no, but this is a very seasoned TD. I concur at this junction. > >I've run _hundreds_ of tournaments myself. I'm hardly a new-comer to the >idea of directing a tournament. And, by the way, _following_ the rules >and interpreting them reasonably and consistently. > > >> >> >>>> >>>>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.