Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 03:47:32 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 05:40:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >Yes, thanks for the information so far but you were an operator too. Didn't you >know the neccessity of the operator's passivity as it was defined by Bob Hyatt? >It is NOT a question of human chess so that the concrete strength as a human >chessplayer is not so important as the knowledge of the naked rules in >computerchess. It was a 3-fold perpetual and hence it should have been ended in >a draw by definition. Psychologically I can well understand the motivation of >JZ but in computerchess he made a big mistake. But I can also understand what >you mean as a member of the community in that tournament. It is called "mass" >suggestion or hypnosis through the self-confidence and presentation of a good >chessplayer. But as Bob pointed out, the rules are more important than such >human incidents. - However the TD could have healed the Zwanzger mistake >according to the - yes, the rules. He should have ordered the taking back of >the further moves after the perpetual. Then Z. would have his status untouched >as a fair sportsman in chess but as a "newcomer" in computerchess. Nobody >would have thought in a negative manner about him. Now it's a fact that he >spoilt the outcome of the whole event with his immature [computerchess rules!] >behaviour. >In that regard I would have hoped that you collegues would have interferred and >helped to correct the case. I think I basically disagree on everything you say. First of all, 'passivity of the operator' is a very vague issue in the way the current tournaments are set up. Hyatt has been posting his views already 10000 times here but I am sceptic whether they would undeed solve more problems than they create. Basically, I disagree with the reasoning that lead the ICGA to the decision, but I disagree with all people that think the decision was unreasonable. The fact that the Jonny engine did not know about 3 fold repetitions, and the draw was claimed by the interface, is IMHO sufficient reason to play on. There are a lot of sideissues here like whether interface and engine should be considered a whole, but I do not want to get into them as they are very difficult discussions in their own. Note that I do not say I would take the same decision. I think the decision is defensible - that's another thing. >It is called "mass" suggestion or hypnosis through the self-confidence and >presentation of a good chessplayer I think this is nonsense, believe me, Mr. Zwanzger was all but confident after the discussions started. It it very easy to criticise the decision on hindsight, but do not forget that at the time of the inital decision not all the facts were known that are known now. I can assure you that I would be very highly surprised if one of the programmers, even the ones disadvtanged, think in a negative manner of Mr. Zwanzger. I consider Shredder to be the double world champion. If the Fritz team disagrees, they should have appealed the decision, and the eventual outcome would have been dependent on the committee of appeal, which did not have ICGA staff in it, but participants. But they did not, so they though the ICGA decision was acceptable as well. Most of the 'problems' in that decision seem to be the people who have a personal axe to grind with the ICGA and seem to think this was a nice opportunity to show their know-it-all skills. Should this issue be addressed different next time? I think certainly yes. Does it mean the ICGA is <insert all the name calling that happened here>? No. >I hope some of my thoughts could further increase the output of your coming >report. Somehow you made a good decision in delaying the publication. Please >bare in mind how it looks if you would defend a clear violation of the rules. I firmly believe rules should be flexibly interpreted by their spirit, which was what happened here. >But just to mention the other proble3m we had as observers. Why could you >tolerate that a collegue was banned for the final three rounds when the >suspicion against the program was already known before the start of the >tournament? This is another strange case to discuss. It would be well respected >if you wouldn't join any kind of bashing party against FR. As long as nothing >can be said for sure. But excuse my somewhat unwanted advice. Again you are sorely missing out on the facts. 1) The suspicion against the program was NOT known to the ICGA before the start of the tournament. 2) The programmer was banned because he failed to and completely refused to follow the rules, and gave the ICGA no room to manoeuver and find a compromise. I cannot help but notice the incredible irony of you asking strict following of the rules in one part of this post and then demanding the exact opposite in the other part. As seems to be misunderstood by all people that can't or don't want to read well, List was not banned for being a crafty clone. It was banned because the author completely failed to follow the rules, refused to do so and gave the ICGA no other option whatsoever than to kick him out of the tournament. -- GCP
This page took 0.02 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.