Author: Darse Billings
Date: 00:52:44 12/21/03
I have read the hundreds of replies in this thread. I don't read this forum regularly, and I do not wish to spark more pointless discussion (though it is likely inevitable). Nevertheless, many things have been said that are simply wrong, so I will try once more to clarify some of the points of contention. As usual in public forums of this kind, a few people are able to combine knowledge and reason to draw correct conclusions about the topic at hand. And as usual, their voices are drowned out by loud and obnoxious people vociferously spewing false information and illogic. It is somewhat appalling to hear that some long-time participants of computer chess competitions have never known the actual rules. Either that or they are just taking a position, and like to argue. When asked about the actual rules governing the competition, their response is effectively: "I don't NEED no steenkin' *rules*, and I don't CARE about no fargin' _facts_, 'cuz I have an OPINION!!1!" Then they proceed to brow-beat anyone who has the temerity to ask a fair question, or disagree on points of fact or logic. The more they are shown to be wrong, the louder and more abusive they become. This is precisely why so many knowledgeable and reasonable people do not participate in this kind of circus. Same as it ever was. If you are looking for Truth, do not expect to hear it from people who see the world as black and white, with no grey. I do not mean to sound condescending, but it irks me to hear such nonsense proclaimed with such certitude. Perhaps I care too much about Truth. (That's my fault). Regardless, I do know the rules for computer chess competitions, as well as the FIDE rules that govern all situations not otherwise covered. I've directed more than 100 chess tournaments, including two National Championships, a Zonal qualifier, and the Canadian Open. I've read the rules pertaining to the WCCC, and I understand them, which is apparently more than some of the objectors have done, or are willing to do. That doesn't mean you should just take my word for it. It means that I invite you to READ THE RULES, and to THINK ABOUT THEM; to put yourself in the role of arbiter, and make a *fair* decision. One of the fundamental flaws in reasoning is the premise that the WCCC is a competition strictly between programs, and that the human operator plays no role whatsoever. That is demonstrably false, and it is trivially easy to see that it is false. A slow operator can affect the outcome of a game. What if an operator refuses to enter a move, or refuses to execute a move and hit the clock? There is no rule that forces him or her to do so within a fixed time period. It is comically absurd for someone to say that the operator plays absolutely no part in the game, and then in the next breath say that when a draw is offered _he_ decides whether to accept or decline for his program. In another post, the same person gives two more perfect examples of operator involvement, contradicting his previous bellowing assertion. Unfortunately, such strident buffoonery also causes harm and confusion, with no accountability. He should be ashamed of himself (but that also appears to be beyond his capability). Under the current format, the human operator is an integral part of the game, and that has always been the case. Ultimately, this is still a competition between *humans* -- the programmers. The role of the operator is intended to be minimal, but it is not zero, nor has it ever been. That may or may not be desirable, but some people are confusing the way they would *like* things to be with the way things _are_. Many people feel that WCCC programs should be fully autonomous, and should handle all of the various circumstances that can arise. I wouldn't disagree with that (I'm in favour of a fully automated communication protocol, and perhaps a simple referee program for technical matters). However, to assert that that *is* the case is extraordinarily dense and uninformed (or deliberately contentious). As usual, reality is not as simple as the Opinionated Man would like it to be. Complications and disputes can and do occur. There are grey areas. Rules are necessary, along with arbiters to interpret them when new or tricky situations are encountered. In overseeing these events, the arbiter should keep in mind the actual purpose of the competition. The original intention of such tournaments was for researchers to get together and exchange ideas, in an atmosphere of friendly competition and social interaction. Winning was never the be-all and end-all (except for a sorry few). Sadly, that noble goal has been eroded in the WCCC of today, as a result of a few belligerent people. (However, it should also be said that the attitudes in Graz were generally very positive, especially after the ban on smoking in Dom Im Berg was imposed). Fortunately the troublemakers are still in the minority, and most participants still stand for honour and mutual respect, including this year's champion, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, and runner-up, Frans Morsch. Incidentally, here's a rhetorical question for those who claim that only the program is competing: At the end of the day, who wears the medals? See http://www.msoworld.com/history2000/jpg/P1010630.JPG and http://www.msoworld.com/history2000/jpg/P1010631.JPG for a clue. Now, let's get down to the nitty-gritty of the ruling. Theorem: Deciding whether to take a draw is not a trivial matter. Proof: That result might clinch first place in the tournament, or it might have no value at all (winning might be essential). The utility of a draw depends on context, including the time remaining for each player, and the strength of the opponent. (Incidentally, that is why such decisions should be made by the core program, and not some simple-minded interface). Suppose you have a position with three distinct threats to choose from: A, B, and C. In each case, the opponent has exactly one correct answer, after which you can do no better than to return to the initial position. After you unsuccessfully try A and B, the initial position occurs for the third time. This does not mean that you choose to draw -- you still want to try C. It is up to the opponent to claim a draw -- not you, not the TD, and certainly not some brain-dead GUI that pops up a window proudly proclaiming that it has detected a third occurrence. While that is definitely a useful thing to know, it does not change the game state one iota. It is no more than _trivia_. It is *NOT* an official draw claim. If you don't agree, then READ THE RULES. No amount of repeated huffing and puffing by loud-mouth schnooks is going to change this fundamental fact. When *you* get that same GUI pop-up window, you simply ignore it, because you still have a good chance to win, and nothing to lose. You are not *forced* to claim the draw, nor should you be. The information printed to the screen could easily be modified to conform to the FIDE rules for claiming a draw. In that case, the operator would have no choice but to relay the claim, and the game would be over. However, that is not *required*, and there would be no advantage in doing so. The repetition draw claims made by operators on behalf of their programs in the past are perfectly valid. Nothing has changed. It can even be the case that a draw is worthless to both players, in which case a position might be repeated indefinitely until the clock decides the outcome. If some third party demanded that the two players immediately agree to a draw, or that the TD declare a drawn game, I would politely tell them to go soak their head. (Or at least, I hope I would remain polite). Traditionally, the programmer could make these decisions on behalf of his program because few people wanted to waste their time on such rare (and often complicated) circumstances. Naturally the programmer will act in his or her own best interest, but even that is not always easy to determine. Sometimes there are grey areas. One such grey issue arose in Graz. A participant was conflicted between doing what he felt was right and honourable, or scoring a cheap and hollow half-point. The author and operator of Jonny, Johannes Zwanzger, chose honour. Had he made his choice quietly, there wouldn't be any controversy. The trouble arose only because he also had the integrity to first ask if it was allowed. Third parties later challenged his right to do what he genuinely felt was in his own best interest. [Those who cannot understand how this could be in his own interest should perhaps consider studying ethics, and the concept of self-worth.] There has been some speculation on how the situation should have been handled, and what I would have done if I was the TD. First, I wouldn't have been the TD for the WCCC. It is a thankless job, and no matter how well the job is done there will always be jerks who complain incessantly, usually holding a ridiculous position. It is easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but no one can say with absolute certainty how they would have acted at that moment. It depends on many factors. Ideally, I would have determined that the 3-fold repetition was discovered by the GUI, and not by the Jonny program itself. This *is* relevant, regardless of what some might choose to believe. Since neither of those voices claimed a draw in the exact manner prescribed by the FIDE rules, the decision falls on the operator (this is normal for computer competitions, and does not make past draw claims any less valid). In this case, the author of Jonny gave a legitimate reason for continuing the game: that he did not want to score a meaningless draw after his opponent had earned a completely won position. In my opinion, this is not even remotely similar to deliberately throwing a game, and Johannes should in fact be applauded for upholding the original spirit of these competitions. Furthermore, he could have forced the issue by refusing to enter Shredder's previous move, losing on time. He also could have made the bogus claim that he wanted to continue in the hope of winning due to a bug, and no one could argue that that was not possible. Instead, he tried to do the right thing, asking the director if it was technically legal to not claim the draw. I'm not in the habit of punishing people for being honest. Since it *is* legal to decline an opportunity to draw, I would have asked the operator of Shredder if he had any objection, and if not, I would have permitted Jonny's move to be executed on the board without any draw claim. Now if the operator of Jonny had asked if he could resign on the spot, I probably would *not* have allowed that. This is not a contradiction. The operator is allowed to resign when the game is (for all intents and purposes) hopeless, but that would not be the case with a valid draw claim in hand. I would tell him that he is permitted to continue the game, and can resign if and when Shredder deviated, if he still felt it was in his best interest. Notice that I've been saying *his* best interest, not that of the program. Again, this is still a competition between *people*, not circuits. Perhaps that isn't the way things *should be*, but that is a different issue. I'm dealing with the reality of the matter. Computer programs don't have feelings (at least, not yet), and I'm pretty certain that Jonny wasn't upset with the decision. Other people might have been, but the honourable wishes of the program's author are more important. That is my opinion. It is entirely possible that another arbiter might have decided differently, and been justified in doing so. There is not always a single definitive answer. (Sorry to mess with your worldview, Opinionated Man). The real world is not an ideal world. Nor is it black and white. The actual situation in Graz (which was not as difficult as the hypothetical case described above) might not have been handled ideally, but on the whole I support the ICGA's decision. I have no intention of debating the issue further. The essential facts are clear, and the decision was justified; but it is futile to try to convince those who have closed minds and open mouths. - Darse.
This page took 0.03 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.