Author: swaminathan natarajan
Date: 03:24:56 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 01:14:17, Mike S. wrote: >On December 22, 2003 at 21:02:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On December 22, 2003 at 20:50:32, Axel Schumacher wrote: >> >>>And again you did not mention (intentionally, of course) that Johnny DID NOT >>>claimed the draw. The GUI, (which is independent of the engine) announced a >>>draw. (...) > >>(...) But let's see what you said about the innocence of the Jonny operator. You claim >>that the GUI did NOT claim the draw properly. I disagree. >> >>The pop-up of the window says: [Levy quote] "info!" To whom? To the operator! >>Then "3-fold-repetition!" > >But not "I claim draw..." > >>At that moment Zwanzger was forced to stop the clocks and call the arbiter etx >>pp. He then had shown the situation, the intended move etc. Jaap would have >>agreed to the draw. With his crime Zwanzger cause a little confusion in Jaap who >>then agreed to play on which was wriong etc pp. > >Zwanzger did not want to claim the draw, he wanted to ask if it's ok to >*continue* in the given situation. He has explained that en detail in the CSS >Forum. This is firsthand information: > >http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/84889.htm > >>>First of all the Jonny program behaved properly according to the rules of FIDE >>>that allegedly [see Billings] were used in Graz. Jonny didn't announce his >>>move!!!! Because that would have forced the operator to make that move!!! Jonny >>>instead announced that he saw a 3-fold rep. Then the operator had to close the >>>window with the message. He then had to stop the clocks and then he should have >>>told the TD that he now had a move that led to the 3-fold rep. > >He wanted to continue the game, not claim the draw. So all of that was *not* >necessary. > >>>But Jonny operator Zwanzger did something very dishonest. He ignored the 3-fold >>>repetition [FIDE version!!! as apllied in Graz] and he moved the displayed move! > >A pop-up info pointing to the repetition, is not a clear draw claim. It could be >called ambigous. Btw. it came from the GUI (ChessBase GUI! :-)), not from the >real competitor the Jonny engine itself AFAIK. The GUI can be seen as a >communication tool, not as a part of the competitor - in this case even more, >being used to run a non-chessbase engine. > >A different thing would have been, if a clear unambigous message from the engine >itself would have appeared. The Fritz GUI offers an option to display a window >for engine output (in addition to the normal engine window), which could have >displayed this theoretically. I don't know if Jonny could have supported that. I >think this additional window is only seldomly used, and virtually unknown. - Or >maybe some engine devolopers use it, and only the users never do or don't >mention it, I don't know. But it exists (I used it once to display additional >Nimzo 8 infos). > >>>But at that moment the draw was destoyed according to the FIDE rules and >>>Zwanzger knew it 100% as a tournament player in FIDE tournament chess!!!! >>>There is absolutely no doubt. > >This is no crime :-) IMO in computerchess, the programs (and/or their operators >respectively) should have *the same freedom to claim or not to claim* a >repetition draw, just like the FIDE rules allow it, too. The Jonny engine said >nothing (couldn't I guess), Zwanzger didn't want the draw and didn't claim the >draw. > >>>Zwanzger simply violated the rules. He moved against the will of the machine and >>>so destroyed the machines little triumph of a draw in a completely lost >>>position. > >No, because "the machine" didn't express a clear unambigous will to claim the >draw. > >I think, chess programs should handle that more clearly in the future, to avoid >such misunderstandings. > >(What the "real" behaviour of the Fritz GUI is in such a case, should be checked >in the so called serious rating game mode rather than in the normal mode, but I >guess it would not be very easy to create a comparable situation by gameplay >only, to test that :-)) > >Shredder had virtually won the game before, reaching a won position. Then >occured the repetion bug (IIRC, even during an announced mate sequenence!). > >I would have claimed it though, and Fritz would be Champion (for a change), but >OTOH it would have been "somewhat brutal" to draw like that when the opponent >already had announced mate before the bug occured. It's really better when these >things are handled by the engines themselves, so the operators and programmers >don't have to meet difficult decisions against each other in such extreme >situations. Either Shredder or Fritz would have got a somewhat unfair 0.5 point >disadvantage from their subjective viewpoint, no matter what Zwanzger would have >done. > >You could have interpreted as a scandal as well, when a ChessBase GUI used by an >amateur, would have decided that Fritz would be Champion by forcing a draw claim >that the programmer didn't even want! :-)) > >>>According to the computerchess traditions he should have ordered to take back >>>the played moves after the message in the pop-up window. Then the game would >>>have been a draw (part two). > >Traditions are not rules, only rules are rule. > >(Often, rules are easier to adapt than traditions, but only when competent >people are in power to do so.) > >But when engines can decide and handle that autonomous (which I think would be >preferable), like it's in the usual engine matches too, this game would have >ended in a draw due to that bug, not reflecting the true engine performances >before. > >Before that situation, Zwanzger had asked the TD to be allowed to resign (I >didn't know that this is required, I guess due to a specific ICGA rule), but was >told to continue a bit, to make the position more clear. > >So, your conclusions are really wrong, no cheat, no crime :-)) > >The real scandal was the other thing (and I guess we mostly, or partially agree >about that much more serious incident), which among other things brings me to >the question, if the ICGA officials are put into power by elections among the >ICGA members, or what kind of democracy exists within that organisation at all. > >It was disgusting, and I say shame on everybody who caused that or supported >that. Thank god I could see in the message boards, that there are a number of >people who share this view, including some big calibres. I just wonder how that >affects ICGA standards and personnel. I don't think they read computerchess >message boards. If they would do regularly, than they could probably judge much >better which suspicion is founded, and which is just an unscrupulous attempt to >misuse incompetence (it worked perfectly). > >Regards, >Mike Scheidl
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.