Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:47:05 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 03:52:44, Darse Billings wrote: > >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. When I react to this very elaborated message, I am the first to write because I didn't see another commentary yet. The interest for me is just an intellectual one because I saw within seconds where the author of the Rebuttal message failed badly to make a proper reasoning to support his position. To make this absolutely clear, I do NOT talk about the real human being Darse Billings, but about the lines DB has published here into this forum. There is no personal offense since I attack logical conclusions which IMO and I can prove that, are completely off the road and that means WRONG or FALSE. I leave other inconvinences aside where the above author has more ore less insulted many people without mentioning their names by just insinuating that they didn't know what the rules were. More of course that it is extremely offensing to write as if the other participants in the debate are some kind of stupid. I think that I can prove that this here is NOT something of stupidity but different interests. A typical psychological situation. I can prove that this case is totally different than the author above means. And at the same time the case is so trivial that it is easy to understand it. This is NOT a case where only rocket scientists or such experts can give a judgement. My English will suck as always but I hope that I can clarify the whole problem. > > >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!" This is the first part where the author argues against his own intention. Because those who argued against the TD decision and operator Zwanzger's behaviour, argued that this was AGAINST any known rules and as if they had made up their own rules! It's beyond reasonable ratio why people can do that. > >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). It is beyond reasonable thinking how a complete twist of what is the case could lead to the truth! The critics say that the TD & Zwanzger didn't behave according to the rules. How can Darse Billings argue that these critics have argued "Away with all rules.. etc" ? Even a 12 y. old child should understand this contradiction in the author's presentation. > >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. It is a tragedy that on such a background it is not understood what the critics of the TD's decision and the operators behaviour really meant. NB they argued that they had seen a violation of all know rules written or traditionally applied. > >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. Before we come to the main chapter of this scandal in Graz the author makes a few aside arguments that don't hold the water they are allegedly able to hold. This is now a part of beautiful wordplays and I am proud to decrypt them. Again all that is understandable for a 12 year old kid with a minimum of intelligence. >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. Now my example for this 12 year old reader. There is also no rule that the operator, here the author of the program itself, has to show up in the event at all!!! So this is also proving that without the operator or author the whole event couldn't take place - actually. But it is the truth that NOBODY ever had said that the operator played such a ZERO role in the event. It is a clear construction of DB who wants to support the position that the operators have exactly that to do - in case of draws - what the young Mr. Zwanzger had in fact done in Graz. But this is a trick. I am allowed to point at it as a trick. Because this is not sound rational debating. NOBODY ever had discussed that the operator were a ZERO or a phantom in the event. But in case of a 3-fold repetition his job is to call for a draw. Period. :) A passive operator is NOT a phantom or a ZERO. What does passive mean?? It means that no intentions whatever of the operator can be opposed to the machine he's operating. And in case of a 3-fold repetition the only thing the operator could do is asking for a draw. We come later to the questions of ethics and such things... :) > >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). With wordplays one can well ridiculize another writer's intentions. Again there was never claimed a ZERO part of the operator but a ZERO part what intentions are cconcerned. This is a different problem. > >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). Such a part is insulting also if it doesn't mention any names. > >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. Just to take the right to express my thoughts I say that it is well, problematic how SMK "accepted" the present of a full point when the game was a clear draw. > >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). What is with the question what is going on on the chessboard? Isn't it important? > >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. But is the 3-fold repetition a draw or not? It is a draw, whether you claim it or NOT. This is the illogical in the above reflection. > >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. Thank you for insulting a lot of people here as "loud-mouth-schnooks", fine insult indeed. Of course there is no name-calling whatsoever! > >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). Here is the top height of illogicical statements. Even a 12 y. old kid can understand that the continuing of such a repetition is nonsense. And that is exactly why the rules say, already after a three times repetition it is a draw. Officially a draw. We are NOT speaking about human chess. There it could well be that either one or the two players don't recognize that they are repeating moves. Either because they had drunk too much alcohol or their strength wasn't that strong. But in case of a machine we see something popping up and this means "Ah, there is three times the same position now or in the next move or such...". But this means there is no choice for the "players", the human operators to agree to a draw! Period. About ethics some paragraphs later. > >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. This is totally false logic. This is NOT a tournament between operators! What does that mean? Who is playing? The machines are playing. Operated by the authors. But a conflict in the operators has no influence on the machines' play. Or at least it shouldn't. This is all understandable for 12 y. old kids. The operator of Jonny chose honour??? I thought that he chose to influence the outcome of the event. To say it with the least possible verdict. It could also well be called cheating. But honour??? > >Had he made his choice quietly, there wouldn't be any controversy. This is completely and provenly false! If that had happened then the cheat would have been discovered later. In that case people would have asked why there was no draw in that position. And people who knew Jonny would say "oh, but Jonny showed the draw on the display!" And then the whole cheat would have been known! >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.] That is extremely insulting to all living chessplayers at least. Myself included. Because we play chess after that rule. A 3-fold ends the game to the stupification of the better player who was winning a won game but badly missed the win by allowing a 3-fold repetition! This has nothing to do with ethics, my dear. This is simply chess. and I can also explain whyy this is acceptable. Because chess is NOT a game about better positions or winning perspectives, but it is all about really winning the won game which is extremely difficult at times! We have here a situation where an experienced arbiter argues AGAINST all known chess rules and traditions of course. Computer chess is NOT such a different game that the usual chess ethics couldn't be applied. > > >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. Now there are jerks. Thank you so much. I think the 12-y-old readers might get the intention of the author to support his else weak case. In such situations you begin to yell insults to impress your opponents. Jerk is a serious insult. But DB is also defending not just a noname but a whole instution, named the TD and TD board of ICGA. > >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. > Interesting that this is not only the belief but a strong perception of the famous schnook and jerk Bob Hyatt who knows what the tradition in computerchess is all about! Thank you for making us believe that Bob might just have beliefs against your rocket science knowledge. <sigh> >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. Read above! 1. Refusing a perfect draw is cheating the event. 2. A won position doesn't win a whole point by definition. 3. A won position must be WON! 4. The position wasn't won by SHREDDER due to a bug. Tough. 5. The 3-fold MUST be a draw by all means. 6. The Jonny operator violated all known rules of chess ethics and tradition. 7. Reason: the basic thing in chess and computerchess is the position on the board and that was a draw. By all definitions. >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. This is now believing and praying and such gospel but this is no longer rational debating. Just hand-waving as it's called in English IMO. > >Furthermore, he could have forced the issue by refusing to enter >Shredder's previous move, losing on time. That would have been the same sort of cheating, the author finally has understood the seriousity of the whole case!!!! Then the cheat would have been crystal clear because also that would be against all known rules. The authour, DB, here is apparently losing ground of any rationality. Because we are again at the beginning when we said that the appearence alone is a clear decision by the operator. Also that he had decided to breathe properly when he left his bed in the early morning in his hotel. I think this does also prove that the operators are far more involved into the event than the machines who are just like appalic syndroms until they are again fed with ACDC. :) I think we have here a very good example why and how a superbly sophisticated author can still write complete nonsense. And it was already noticed by many good experts. Bob Hyatt, the true expert from Alabama. But it is right, DB is in a defense for not few experts who are in deep difficulties after that event in Graz. But they prefer to keep silence, because they know very well what the mess is in fact. > 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. Objection. That would have been cheating, Sir! Please stop to publish such cheating advice for the next events. In case of a 3-fold the operator can well go to the toilets but he is NOT allowed to continue playing. Period. >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. The truth is that the quest to the TD was NOT being understood by the TD! Read the reports properly. > >Since it *is* legal to decline an opportunity to draw, No, it is NOT legal in computerchess! Or show us the rule that says exactly this! I find it extremely offensive, to say the least, that an expert is wiping out all arguments by real computerchess experts just with hand-waving. This is very insulting. Rolf > 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 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.