Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 21:09:15 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 23:28:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. You better do a reality check, as it appears you left that and your manners at the door! Have a Nice Day/Night
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.