Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:47:11 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 07:37:14, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Bob, > >>> as you may remember and as given in the explanation of the ICGA about the >>> decision the draw was not declared at the correct point and the Jury thinks >>> that then according to the FIDE rule the game can't be a draw. > >> This is wrong. The chess program said "this is a 3-fold repetition". >> If you use their reasoning, _no_ program claimed a repetition or whatever >> correctly, yet they were accepted _every_ time. This is just after-the-fact >> justification for a really ugly decision. > >no, finally, at least as I had understood the reasoning, Jaap said that the game >was still in progress and the draw was not claimed at the board by the operator >- at least not correctly because the move was played -> That was the reason for >him to not count it as a draw... I think all this stuff with the info-window >etc. is nonsense and just a try to confuse everybody. It's not nonsense at all. Because of that window message the attitude of the human operator - and also a good chessplayer - J. Zwanzger cheated the rules he also knows from chess. See the most important reason below. > >This is a sound explanation Err, it's NOT a sound explanation. >- but of course I agree with you that the decision >anyway is not correct - a) it's against the rules that the operator has such a >big influence because the engine clearly takes the draw and b) it's also against >the spirit of rules... > >In the discussion I did ask Jaap about who is playing here - is it the engine, >is it the gui or is it the operator... or a combination ? In my opinion with the >current rules it is mainly the engine and the gui - the operator should only >play a passive role... and that was not the case in that game. > >So Johannes did a mistake here - it is an understandable mistake, No, it is absolutely NOT understandable. The reason for that below. >think about >the situation, you play against an engine that might lose the title in this game >because of such a stupid bug - and it was his first tournament... As I said >several times I would have been happy that in such a situation Quark would take >the decision out of my hands because it would claim a draw to WinBoard and >refuse to play on. The GUI said exactly what you desired. The wording is not so interesting. It is just a hint that the 3-fold is happening now. Addressed to human operators who are perhaps too weak chess players to understand the 3-fold. If you had ever played tournament chess you knew that this is very difficult a job to clarify the 3-fold - just because the positions appear not neccessarily all in a row. So it is difficult from memory to imagine the exact positions if you have only your written score sheet. Zwanzger is a very good chessplayer and he knew very well the danger of the repetition. It is a clear cheat if he decides pro Shredder against other programs. Also considering that his own prog had nothing to do with the top. One could insinuate that he wanted to manipulate a little bit at least. A clear violation of the rules. TD had no choice to state the draw. Probably with a warning to Zwanzger. As pointed out to Billings, what is the philosophy of the three fold rep in chess? It is the so called lucky punch possibility for the losing side, unlike in boxing in chess not to win the game but to draw a losing game. Like the repetition we have the so called patt. Where the losing side cannot move anymore. Of course this is looking extremely cowardly if you look for such possibilities when you almost have lost the game. But this is what only lays could misunderstand. A chessplayer knows that it is a completely different task to win a won game and many have lost all the advantages they had won in the early moves of the game. So, it is NOT cowardly to wait for the last chance if you are almost losing a game. However it is extremely cheating to refuse to take the chance to draw and to throw such a (already losing) game. I think this is all so trivial that the basic problem in Graz wasn't a real puzzle at all. Rolf > >Anyway, the TD should have corrected that mistake maken by the operator by >declaring it as a draw... bugs are part of the competition and I have no doubt >that Stefan would have not complaint when the decision of the Jury would have >been different. > >There were even some rumours that the ICGA was thinking of disqualifing >Johannes. That was beyond my understanding - we are humans and we make mistakes >- therefor we have the TD to guide us through them. So Johannes decision was >very fair, but wrong - TD should have corrected it. > >Greets, Thomas
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.