Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Another example of things that could happen

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 06:22:56 12/10/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 10, 2003 at 04:03:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On December 09, 2003 at 17:49:59, Amir Ban wrote:
>
>>But this division between engine and interface never came up in the
>>considerations of Herik, Levy and the rest throughout their deliberations. It
>>was suggested as a justification *after* the final decision.
>>
>>If the TD paid no attention to this detail, how can it make his decision
>>right ?
>
>You can make a reasonable decision based on incorrect reasoning or
>assumptions. And yes, that probably happened here as was very clear
>during Mr. Zwanzgers explanation.
>
>>It didn't play any part in Zwanzger's desire to avoid a draw, either.
>
>How can you be so sure of that? He said he considered it unsportsmanlike
>to claim the draw there. He explained that Jonny didn't know about 3 fold
>rep. I find the relation logical.
>
>>What you are saying is that he couldn't claim a draw even if he wanted to,
>>which is ridiculous.
>
>I'm not saying this at all. I'm just saying that the desire to play and
>and the decision by the TD to allow this (well, not exactly, see above)
>are defensible from my point of view, but only so because the engine didn't
>know about 3 fold repetition.
>
>There would be no defending the ruling in any other case, but I consider
>this a sufficient reason to play on. There come in other factors here like the
>distinction between engine and interface and so on and so on, but those
>are more like holy wars that'll never get a decision satisfying everyone,
>despite at least 20 people here claiming that the matter is very clear and
>reaching conclusions opposite each other.
>
>I'll give an example that's very close:
>
>Junior isn't having a lucky day and gets into a lost KNNKP ending vs an
>amateur engine running under the ChessBase GUI. Suddenly, the amateur
>announces Mate in 49 of out tablebases, but your opponent frowns and
>realizes this is the CB GUI and not his engine (which doesn't support
>tablebases at all). He requests to take back the move played by the GUI,
>disable tablebases in GUI, and let the engine try to find the mate on its
>own.
>
>Of course you know the engine can never find this mate on it's own,
>so if you allow it you have a draw and if you refuse you get mated and
>lose the chance for the world title.
>
>Do you consider it reasonable to allow him to do this? I do.

NO.  Here's why.  If you set the wrong time control and _then_ start the
game, you are stuck.  Otherwise I would set a blitz time control and leave
it active until the game reaches an important stage.  I'd then go back to
the normal time control and use the extra time I have built up to hopefully
find a way to win.  Unacceptable operator influence.

Whether to allow such a GUI to be used is a different issue that needs to
be addressed.  But it has needed addressing for 5 years now and the ICGA
has ignored it.  You definitely don't address it in the middle of a tournament,
in a critical game.

>
>But not everyone agrees, obviously.
>
>--
>GCP



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.