Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 04:28:34 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
In Reply to: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy -- rebuttal posted by Robert Hyatt on December 23, 2003 at 00:12:55: On December 23, 2003 at 00:12:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. A question;What do either of you hope to achieve with this type of scurrilous discourse? All I see is an unending cycle of contempt. This will lead nowhere. I doubt you'll answer me Bob, but I hope at least Darse will. I can see both sides of this arguement, and it isn't something I'd desire either way, but the ICGA made it's ruling and it appears final. BTW I carefully read the rules, and there is a bit of wiggle room to support Darse's claims. IOW there is just enough ambiguity, however small, to make an interpretation of the aforementioned rules. Yet, I see how easy it is to support your claims, not that Darse is necessarily wrong, but has a far more difficult task for him to prove his claims, and I wish he'd do a better job in clarifying why there is wiggle room. In number 5 there is more cans or mays, than musts. It's a very fine line, but it's there. I think the wording and certain modifications are in order, to prevent this sort of arguement, IMHO. Terry
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.