Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:11:25 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 18:22:13, Darse Billings wrote: >On December 21, 2003 at 23:28:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I _do_ know the rules. I can read. > > >But choose not to? Not me, but apparently you do. So to refresh your memory, here is an _exact_ quoting of the two rules in question, taken directly from the ICGA web site: 5. An operator error made when starting a game or in the middle of a game can be corrected only with the approval of the Tournament Director. If an operator enters an incorrect move, the Tournament Director must be notified immediately. Both clocks will be stopped. The game must then be backed up to where the error occurred. Clocks will be corrected and the settings at the time when the error occurred will be reinstated using whatever information is available. Both sides may then adjust their program parameters with the approval of the Tournament Director. The Tournament Director may allow certain program parameters to be changed. 6. All monitors must be positioned so that the operator’s activities are clearly visible to the opponent. An operator may only: [a] enter moves, and [b] respond to a request from the computer for clock information. This latter activity must be observed by the Tournament Director or his designate. If an operator needs to enter other information, it must be approved ahead of time by the Tournament Director. The operator may not query the system to see if it is alive without the permission of the Tournament Director. Those are _right_ off the ICGA web site containing the official rules for the tournament. Notice specifically rule 6 which _clearly_ contradicts all the nonsense you are trying to claim was correct. The operator can _not_ do anythying but enter moves and answer info about the time. He can _not_ choose to offer or decline or accept a draw. He can not sit and not move after the program has displayed its move. He can't do _anything_ except for the duties given in rule 6. Now, it is possible that a mistake is made by the operator in carrying out his responsibilities as defined in rule 6. And in that case, please read rule 5, which you _also_ appear to be ignorant of. Notice that it says that if a mistake is made (here mistake = operator playing or entering the wrong move) then the game backs up to the point of the mistake and then proceeds from that point after making the correct move. Jonny said "This is a draw". The correct action by the TD would have been to back the game up to that point, accept that statement since it _was_ a 3-fold repetition, and the game should have ended _right there_. Now, with the _exact_ wording of the two rules in question provided above, so that you can't dance around and quote non-existent rules, please continue your rancid explanation of how the final result was correct. According to the rules being used at the event, not according to your imaginary rules. > > >>I _do_ know the rules. > >>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. > > >False. > > RULES FOR THE 11th WORLD COMPUTER-CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP > Graz, Austria > 21-30 November, 2003 > The Board of ICGA > GENERAL RULES > > 5. Unless otherwise specified, rules of play are identical to > those of human tournament play. If a point is in question, > the Tournament Director has the right to make the final > decision. > >FIDE rules are in effect, like it or not. You cleverly skipped the first three words. "Unless otherwise specified" and rules 5 and 6 are _otherwise specified_ and clearly contradict your position. > > >>I have no idea where you get your information, but you _really_ need >>a new source. > > >No, I think I'll stick to the ICGA WCCC rules, and the FIDE rules >that apply in all other cases, thanks. You use whatever you want. Then why don't you stick with them? So far, you have not. or at least you seem to miss the "unless otherwise ..." We have _always_ had a few special-case rules for CC events. For obvious reasons, mainly to prevent the humans from helping the programs when they often need it. > > >A pop-up window indicating a third occurence of position is not >the same as claiming a draw on that account. Certainly it is. Again, show me the _exact_ rule that says what specific text has to be used, either in the ICGA or FIDE rule book. Hint: "there is none". The program said "3-fold repetition detected." The human could not continue the game until he clicked the OK button to dismiss the window, which is something we _all_ do so that an opponent can continue playing if he wants, since normally it is computer vs the human operator. But the claim, as given _was_ enough. I will point out the _major_ flaw in your claim. Several other programs used the Fritz interface. _all_ claimed the 3-fold repetition the same way. Do you suggest that all of those were wrong? Either way, the final result was incorrect. > >The program did not say "I claim a draw", so it hasn't done so. > >Is that *really* so hard to understand? *Really*? Yes. Because, as I asked earlier, _please_ quote the precise rule and page number in your Official rules of chess from FIDE that specifically specifies exactly what wording must be used when making a 3-fold repetition claim. I'm waiting... > > >>the chess system "Jonny" claimed a 3-fold repetition ... >>When the program says "3-fold repetition" it is _over_. > > >False. The game is over when the program says "I claim a draw". You really are not much of an arbiter are you? I've directed _many_ events, and all the rules require is that the player inform you of his claiming that the game is over by 3-fold repetition. I've had foreign players just hold up 3 fingers and point to their score sheet. That's more than good enough. I've seen the _same_ thing used at the US open and the world open. So get off this wrecked soapbox stating that the engine must say "I claim a draw". It can just as well say "this is a 3-fold repetition", "this is a perpetual", "this is drawn", etc. There is _no_ precise wording required, regardless of how many times _you_ say there is. > >That is why *you* changed Crafty to conform to the actual rules. No, I changed it so that igmo's like yourself would not have any way to claim it was not doing it right. Notice that as of 1 week ago, crafty was the _only_ program that did this right. Does that make all the other draws invalid? No, because the program tells the operator what to do, the operator is responsible for doing it _correctly_ on the board. For example, the program does _not_ say "make my move Nc3 and then hit the clock." The GUI has _always_ had the human operator assumption built in, since the computer can't move the pieces. Is _that_ so hard to understand? > >Five self-contradictions (and counting) must surely be due to more >than simple daftness. Perhaps your obtuseness is only an act, and >you are just trying to cause trouble. > I certainly hope yours is an act. Otherwise you have a _real_ problem. > >>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 > > >From the FIDE Laws of Chess Official Handbook > > Article 9: The drawn game > > 9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having > the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not > necessarily by sequential repetition of moves) Jonny did _exactly_ that. It clearly stated "this is a 3-fold repetition". If that isn't a claim, I doubt you could recognize one if it ran over you. > > a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet > and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or > > b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move. > > Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player > has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same > squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are > the same. > > Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured > en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has > been changed temporarily or permanently. > > > 9.4 If the player makes a move without having claimed the draw > he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move. > > >When the rules are not a perfect fit, it is up to the arbiter to make >an appropriate interpretation. I have, and so did the ICGA. Nope. See rule 5. The operator did it _wrong_. That is correctable under ICGA rule 5, which you are cleverly completely ignoring. However, since you seem to have real problems reading it, I chose to copy it in its entirety here since you keep saying that I should read it when you obviously have not. > >Perhaps you should read the rules. > I'll repeat. Perhaps _you_ should read the rules. _all_ of the rules. Including rule 5. So far you have not. > - Darse.
This page took 0.03 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.