Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 09:41:50 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
>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, ----------This means that your opinion deserves a hearing, not that it is correct. >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. --------There is no rule saying exactly what the WCCC is. What the WCCC is, is defined by the participants and the spectators. Perhaps each person can decide for himself. I think you're inventing rules here that will determine your perspective later on. Yet, only by staying within the established rules can we determine if they are sufficient or insufficient for future competitions. >Under the current format, the human operator is an integral part of >the game, and that has always been the case. -------Just because the human operator has always been integral to the game doesn't mean the operator SHOULD be integral to the game. I don't think the past establishes a moral imperative for the future here. >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. -------You are the one who is framing it as a competition between humans. The progammers tend to see it as a competition between their surrogates, and apparently wish that the role of the human be made as small as possible. >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_. -------I don't think there's any confusion. I think what people are saying is that the way things _are_ isn't necessarily desirable. The role of the human operator is a necessary evil to be minimized. >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). -------Then you can see the point of view many have expressed here. >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). ------Is there a rule saying that in gray areas, arbiters should keep in mind that authors want to exchange ideas? Again, I think you're adding something here that some people may not agree with. Worse, we need to determine whether the rules are sufficient in themselves. If not, then the rules have to be revised to minimize grey areas. > >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. > -------This might be a valid point in another context. Unfortunately, in this context does not advance the discussion, since the Jonny operator had no chance to win. He could only cause his opponent to have a chance to win the tournament. >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. ------There are two frames of reference here...the frame of reference of the individual game and the frame of reference for the whole tournament. It appears that a seemingly honorable decision at the level of the individual game threw the tournament into chaos. The continued discussions are evidence of that. >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. ------And this is why it is necessary to revise the rules in order to minimize the function of the operator. Moreover, this is why the "ideal of the minimized operator" is a better frame of reference than "the goal of the tournament is to allow the authors to exchange ideas." Given that there is ambiguity, it makes sense to eliminate that ambiguity insofar as is possible. >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. ------Whether it is remotely similar to deliberately throwing the game is irrelevant. Again, the rules should be sufficient in themselves, and if an operator wants to throw a game, it appears that he could. He needs only to look at how his behavior affects the whole tournament. An operator should not even be allowed to entertain this perspective. That's the point. The rules require revision. >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. --------Most people are not in the habit of punishing others for being honest. But that's not the issue. The point is that there is no way of determining whether other operators in a similar position might not think to themselves, "hmmm...you know...it would be seen as chivalrous to reject the draw here, and that could give my buddy a chance." Again, the operator should not be allowed to exploit any ambiguity in the rules in order to change the outcome of an entire tournament. No one can prove this happened, but no one can prove it didn't, and this is the problem. >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. ----------I would hope that you would also look at how the decision on this particular board could affect the whole tournament. You don't say that you would. > >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. -------You see it as a competition between people, not circuits. Others want to minimize any human influence, and that becomes their frame of reference when the rules fail. > >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. > ---------You have to realize that you're dealing with programmers here. Programmer value determinism in their results, and strive to shrink ambiguity to nothing. >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. ------See my comment just above. Roger
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.