Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:28:51 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. > > >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. OK. I'll bite there. You are an absolute idiot. Because I _do_ know the rules. I can read. So please take your supercilious crap somewhere else. > >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!" Again, show where _I_ have said that. I _do_ know the rules. I even quoted the rules you were wrong about _here_. > >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). Or perhaps you care too much about how you are perceived in this message forum? Hint: You didn't look that good in your interpretation of the WCCC rules, because you kept refering to FIDE rules which have little to do with the situation in the Shredder vs Jonny game. > >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. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Your point would be? > > >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. And here is where you step back from _reality_. It has _always_ been a competition between two computer players. The human has _no_ role in the outcome of the game, whatsoever. Do I _really_ have to quote the rule that _explicitly_ lays out what the human is allowed to do, and _all_ that he is allowed to do? > 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. Yes there is. And there always has been a _direct_ understanding about this. Before you drown, why don't you contact IM Mike Valvo, who directed at least 20 computer chess tournaments, and ask. The rule about the operator's duties has _always_ implicitly required that a move be entered _when_ it is made. The operator can _not_ just sit and let the flag fall. I have no idea where you get your information, but you _really_ need a new source. And if you direct human events with this same aplomb, they must have been miserable events. > >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. You should know that the _operator_ does not get to make this decision, so you are simply wrong _again_. The operator has to ask the TD if it is OK to accept a draw, _if_ the program can't make that decision itself. If the program can make the decision, the decision made by the program stands and the operator can't overrule it. > 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). Pot, kettle, my friend. Look in the mirror _first_ before making such silly statements. But, since you want to take the conversation that way, it certainly appears that directing a computer event is beyond _your_ 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. You can not grasp the difference between the operator being involved, only because he enters and makes moves, and tells the program how much time it has left when it asks, and the operator making decisions about the _outcome_ of the game. You _really_ don't see that distinction? You _really_ have been a TD in events in the past? _really_???? > >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_. Yes, but you are the one doing that, not the participants for the past 33 years of computer chess tournaments... > >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. This is a crock. When the computer says "my move is xxx" the operator has to make it _right now_. He can't think about it. He can't change the move. He can't delay letting his clock run. His responsibility is both clear and simple. In fact, it is given as the _exact_ comparison to what a blind-players "proxy" does. Do you _really_ think than when a blind player tells his proxy to play e4, that his proxy can just sit there and let his flag fall? Right... > >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). This is baloney, wholely baloney, and nothing but baloney. The purpose of playing a _tournament_ is to win games. The purpose of having a computer chess conference is to present ideas and have discussions. Often the two are combined. But OTB, the games are played just as seriously as a game between two GM players for the world championship. To suggest otherwise is simply stupid. > >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. Hint: "the program's author". Your point would be??? > > >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). And if the program and interface are intertwined? Please stick to TD decisions, you are not qualified to discuss program design decisions based on software engineering principles... > >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. It _absolutely_ is. Show me _any_ rule that differentiates between the GUI and the engine, used in the WCCC or any other ICCA/ICGA or ACM computer chess event. I will _not_ hold my breath, because your statement is nonsense. There _is_ no such rule. The rules refer to "the computer". Not "the computer monitor" or "the computer chess engine" or "the computer chess program GUI". They never _have_ made that distinction, they never _should_. > >If you don't agree, then READ THE RULES. Unstick your capslock, then FOLLOW YOUR OWN SUGGESTION. Show me where the GUI can't claim draws, only the engine can. Please quote the _entire_ rule from the ICGA official WCCC set of rules used in Graz. I will wait for your squirming and paraphrasing nonsense. > >No amount of repeated huffing and puffing by loud-mouth schnooks >is going to change this fundamental fact. Then why on earth are you trying to do so? > >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. Crap, crap, and more crap. _you_ can ignore it and play on, and most chess programs let you do that. But that does _not_ mean that had they been playing you in a tournament, and they claimed the draw, that the TD would have not allowed the claim. On the contrary, when the program wants a draw, then by the rules it can claim it. You don't get to play on. The operator doesn't get to make that decision either. As per the rules. > >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. Yes it has. You claim it is ok for the operator to _ignore_ a repetition claim and play on, "just because he thought the game should have been won by Shredder." Never matter what the program Jonny thought. It was what the _operator_ thought that mattered. And that is simply wrong. It has _always_ been wrong at a computer chess event. I hope it will always _be_ wrong at them. Just as it was wrong in Graz. > >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). You can obfuscate all you want. But it _still_ overlooks the problem that the chess system "Jonny" claimed a 3-fold repetition, and at that point, the game was _over_ since we _know_ that the claim was valid and the position had been repeated 3 times. Forget all your nonsense about playing on, about both sides thinking they had winning chances, etc. When the program says "3-fold repetition" it is _over_. > >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. Yes. He chose to disobey a specific rule. He chose to change the outcome of the event and take the title from Frans and give it to Steffen. He chose to forever taint that result. And, to top it off, the TD allowed this to happen, because (a) he didn't pay enough attention when it happened and didn't understand the question; (b) after he saw he had screwed up, he chose to stick by the incorrect decision rather than fix it. > >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.] > I suspect Frans has another word for it. :) > >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. As a TD you do _not_ get to make up rules as you go. Again, please cite the _specific_ rule that would allow you to make such a decision. There is no such rule, such a decision would be founded on imagination rather than specific rule, and it would be _invalid_ just as the decision in Graz was. > >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. That is simply not allowed. Dozens of games have been lost by programs in clearly winning positions, because of a bug. I can recall where the GUI promoted to a queen rather than a knight, and the game was lost. Note that the _GUI_ mis-played the move, not the engine which clearly had =N in its PV. But the screen displayed =Q and it was certainly possible that the program had changed its mind, so the move stood, and the game was lost. Others have lost games due to bugs. You simply do _not_ get to say "you played better, I am resigning even though you just hung your queen due to a bug..." The operator does _not_ have that power. And that is why unless the program generates the draw offer, or resignation offer itself, the operator has to ask the TD for permission to offer a draw or resign. The operator is _not_ allowed to make those decisions himself. > >Furthermore, he could have forced the issue by refusing to enter >Shredder's previous move, losing on time. Not allowable under the rules.. So please stop producing nonsensical statements such as that. The operator can _not_ influence (directly) the outcome of the game, due to action or inaction on his part. > 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. He can _not_ override the decision announced by the program. The program said "this is a 3-fold repetition". That is all it takes. >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. Sorry, but that is _still_ wrong. It is _not_ legal to decline a draw, unless the program can't make that decision. But here the program _claimed_ the draw, and the operator has nothing to decline. A repetition is not an offer of a draw to your opponent. Your opponent gets _no_ say-so in the draw decision. All that is required is that the TD verify that the claim is correct. So forget this operator makes the decision stuff. It simply doesn't happen and has not been allowed in many years. > >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. It is a competition between _programs_. Yes, humans write the programs. But once the game starts, the human is explicitly excluded from influencing the game. That is the way it is. It is the way it has _always_ been at these events. I like the way you drop in off of the turnip truck, and try to justify a very bad decision, without knowing _any_ history about computer chess events and specifically not knowing anything about computer chess tournament rules... > >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. No they aren't. Because that program's author made a decision that affected _others_. And _that_ is what is wrong... > > >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). You haven't messed with mine, since your opinion is so far out in left field that it really doesn't matter at all. > >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. Or those with _no_ mind at all, either. Unfortunately... > > - Darse.
This page took 0.07 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.