Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:49:39 12/09/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 09, 2003 at 23:31:24, Terry McCracken wrote:

>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.

That's the point.  According to the rules, "the operator can _not_ "screw
up"".  Any mistakes he makes cause the game to back up and correct the
mistake.  That turns the game into an instant draw.


>>
>>
>>>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.