Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:41:53 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. > >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. First, to quote a famous wrestler my son used to watch when he was younger (the Rock) "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK." :) Rules are rules. "operator passivity has _always_ solved more problems than it created." In fact, it has created _zero_ problems. > >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. That is simply an impossible statement to understand. > >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. Can you please cite the specific rule that says that the GUI, and the engine, (and even the computer) are separate entities? If not, there is _no_ basis for such a "sufficient reason" claim. My UI claims draws, not my "engine". Are you saying _my_ draw claims are therefore something that can be ignored? If so, can I also override my UI when it plays a move I don't like? That reasoning is simply wrong. >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. There is no decision to make. The rules refer to the "program". And with no reference to a separate entity called the "GUI" or "UI" thinking along those lines is an artificial stretch, to say the least. >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. As well he should have been, since the decision was clearly wrong. > >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. Have you never seen someone convicted of a crime, only to have it later reversed when new evidence is uncovered? That would have been the right decision here. IE how long did it take to revoke Ben Johnson's olympic gold medals and give them to someone else? > >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. Or they thought that they could not make a good choice. No appeal was bad. Appealing would have been just as bad. Because no appeal gave up a title they had earned. Appealing would have appeared to be self-serving as it would have asked for a title they had technically lost. They should _never_ have been put in that position. The TD could have solved this easily. > >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. If you are talking about me, you are as wrong as usual about my motives. The decision was wrong. The Jonny operator violated the rules, and the rules provide for a remedy for that happening. The rules were not followed. It has _nothing_ to do with "an axe to grind." > >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. In other words, rules should be ignored? There is no "flexibility" in the rule about what the operator is allowed to do during a game. > >>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. That decision was fine. It _could_ have been handled better. IE list should have been banned prior to the start, or after it ended. Or, if it is kicked out, all games should have been declared losses and scores adjusted. > >-- >GCP
This page took 0.01 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.