Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:12:55 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 23:05:56, Darse Billings wrote: >On December 22, 2003 at 21:11:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > > >Neither of these rules pertain to the situation at hand. I quoted the >rules that do. So the rule explicitly enumerating the operator's responsibilities doesn't apply, even when the operator _clearly_ operated _outside_ of the above rules by _not_ doing what the program instructed when making a move? > > >>>A pop-up window indicating a third occurrence of position is not >>>the same as claiming a draw on that account. >> >>Certainly it is. > > >The ICGA says otherwise. Their opinion is the one that matters. >That makes you wrong. Aha. So I am wrong because they _say_ I am wrong? > >You are also wrong on the basis of simple logic. And you know it. No I'm not. I asked you to quote a specific rule that says that a pop-up window that must be dismissed before the game can continue does _not_ constitute a valid demand for a draw by repetition to be relayed to the TD. You have _never_ responded to that. I assume you never will, since there is no such requirement given in any rule book I have _ever_ seen. > >If you disagree with the ruling that they alone have the authority >to make, then why not just say that you disagree, instead of making >bogus arguments full of contradictions and irrelevancies? They do _not_ have the ability to override tournament rules. They _never_ have had that right. I have no idea why you even take this approach since you _claim_ to have TD experience. Let me tell you how a _real_ TD handles this kind of problem, since you are obviously _not_ one. 1. Read the rules carefully. If the rule applies with no ambiguity, then the rule is applied as written and the decision is easy to make. 2. If the rule seems to apply, but there is an ambiguity that leaves a question, then the _next_ thing to do is ask "is there a precedent that has already handled this circumstance?" If so, you then continue that precedent and make the same decision there. In this event, there was a precedent as _several_ programs had made draw claims in the _exact_ same way? How do I know? Because they used the exact same GUI, that's how, and for the ones that didn't use the same GUI, others have tested them and found that they also did not follow the proper "order" of claiming the draw, and then not making the move. But now we have precedent, and once precedent is set, the TD is obligated to continue it unless there is some clear and significant new information that comes out that shows that past precedent was wrong. Just look at how the legal system works to understand this. 3. If there is no precedent, _now_ you get to make one. Because you are forced to make a decision, and hopefully it is based upon a literal interpretation of the rules, the spirit of the rules (ever heard the judge mention "the spirit of the law"?) and so forth. But in this event, 1 and 2 were enough to seal the decision... And why you, claiming to be a TD, don't understand that is beyond me... > >Your logic is incorrect. Perhaps because correctness has nothing >to do with your agenda... It certainly seems to have little to do with yours. It appears that someone within the ICGA asked you to come here and defend them, taking any angle possible, no matter how little fact or solid reasoning there is to support it. I have no such agenda. I've been playing in computer chess events for about 30 years. I _know_ what the rules say. I _know_ what the spirit of the rules is all about (hint: the computers play, _not_ the operators) Etc. > > >>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. > > >No, they were not wrong. They were made in the usual way: the operator >is made aware of the opportunity to claim a draw, and does so. But in >this case the operator chose otherwise, as has also happened many times >in the past. Nothing has changed. This has _not_ happened many times in the past. It has _never_ happened in the past. Again, you make wild statements. I offer you the chance to provide _one_ case where in a computer chess event, the program said "I want to claim a draw" and the operator did not honor that. Just one. Then we can talk. I can offer dozens of the opposite case, where the program said something that was horribly wrong, but the TD _forced_ that to be played, even though it made little sense. Contrary to your distorted view of the event, the rules are there to _prevent_ operator intervention, not _assist_ it. Why don't you ask any participant rather than just blowing off steam about something you know little about? This has _always_ been the way CC events have been played. And when I say _always_ that comes from a _lot_ of real experience, not guesswork. > > >>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 wording of FIDE Article 9 is amply clear. The tournament rules override FIDE rules. As they _explicitly_ state. You _really_ have a problem following this??? > >The rules do not cover every possible eventuality, nor can they, >nor do they attempt to. That is also in the rules, BTW. They are >guidelines to be interpreted (when necessary) by fair and impartial >arbiters. You are neither. Bullshit. I was not a participant. I have no vested interest in _any_ program that played. Mine did not. I had no vested interest in the outcome of the event. I do not personally know either Frans or Steffen. How could I _possibly_ be any more impartial than that, when I have absolutely _nothing_ to gain? Get real... > >If you prefer to play fast and loose with the rules, fine. You might >even get away with it. But it is not advisable when dealing with >contentious participants. In that case it is better to follow them >a bit more closely. Which is what _I_ am suggesting, _not_ what you are suggesting. > > >Did you wish to set a time limit on this pointless discussion? Since >you have posted more than 100 times vs my 5, I claim that your flag >has fallen. You've also been mated. Better luck next game. Fortunately an incompetent TD can't call a game over here. I move my king "out of mate" as you simply don't understand what "checkmate" means any more than "no operator interference".. > > - Darse.
This page took 0.02 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.