Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:03:28 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 06:47:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. Your basic right! > >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. I observe a black weather front coming from BE-NE. Yes, I do agree that Hyatt is just another of the many fun-makers around and you must not bother to ignore him. It is impossible to look through his thousands of messages. Perhaps it's like the search for the needle in the hay. Just don't let you be disturbed. > >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. I see. Wasn't it unreasonable in view of the rules in computerchess? Excuse my inquisitory questioning. > >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. Aha - and on the board, it was a draw or not? That was the important question, also for the TD... <sigh> >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. Just to get it right: you are supporting a decision against a clear rule in computerchess that a 3-fold rep is a draw? Just to collect enough data. > >>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. Did he say something about his possible cheating the outcome of the tournament and was it this the reason for his partial irritation? Just a psychologically interesting side-issue. > >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. The fact that a 3-fold rep is a draw, that was not mutual agreement in Graz? And then the debate began how such a good program could be helped to get into the tie? > >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 agree. I would expect a different result in respect of the TD....... > >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. You mean nobody ever claimed that a 3-fold rep is a clear draw? From your many beautiful pics I could see that there was a kind of claustrophobic atmosphere in the grand hall in the middle of a mountain. Can you be sure that the atomic fall-out was in reasonable limits? Just couldn't resist. Also the green artifical lights could have had a dimming effect? How about your experience? > >But they did not, so they though the ICGA decision was acceptable as well. Let me be precise in this point. Did they tolerate that FRITZ got a tie against the promoted SHREDDER or was it because nobody ever mentioned the draw question in case of a 3-fold-rep?? Two different problems IMO. Although both progs had the same company... Don't you think that some feable opposition could have been neccessary? Or are you somewhat befriended with the TD because of the attest he wrote for your university...? Excuse the apparent nit-picker. > >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. Ah yes. Now I can see at least a motivation why Amir Ban should haqve refused to appeal since next year the circus will arrive in Israel... Bad luck for the academic Bob... > >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. GP, excuse me, I am an old chessplayer with a praxis longer than your lifetime on this earth. How about this rule with the 3-fold-rep. It is ALWAYS the weapon for the losing side of the board. Didn't you know that? It's NEVER a juste final of the game. It does always insult the better player, but why did he spoil his good position?????? And you want to call such a messy machine the justified Wch?????????? > >>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. You are wrong. There is no double standard. Look, in case of the draw the rule is clear IMO, it cant be changed nor influenced by the TD, but the reaction of the TD in case of suspicions if the author is in the middle of his examinations, this is a different topic. And the TD decision was shaky. Look please, if Fritz R. would have replied ok after the event I will meet Dr. Heinz, THEN the TD would have accepted because of the examinations. But no answer at all in such a stress was enough to exert the death penalty? And what is if Fritz is a sober programmer??? Just take this for three seconds and then tell me how this can be repaired! The double standard is in the TD. One time he would have accepted the excuse and in the other case he didn't see any excuse at all. But everyone who ever had examination does know the difficulties of such a stress situation. In case Fritz is innocent the damage can never again be repaired! I would even conclude that the three final rounds there was no reason to make a hasty decision. Of course I agree with you that the decision is NOT against the written law if such tournaments. But I miss the sensitivity of a good TD. All this IF Fritz is innocent. Please let's show some respect or compasion in the other case! This is meant serious. Thanks. Rolf > >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 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.