Author: Mike S.
Date: 20:12:28 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 11:46:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >(...) >In the WCCC event, (1) and (2) are all that is needed. Because (2) had been >done dozens of times in previous rounds when programs claimed a draw, using >the _same_ GUI, and those draw claims were upheld. You can _not_ then go to >a later game in the same event and rule 180 degrees out of phase with your >previous ruling, just to justify a stupid mistake that was made. Yet this >happened. They accept all draw claims up to this point, then claim that this >claim was not made correctly, and then they penalize the _program_ for the >operator's mistake, when rules 5 and 6 explicitly spell out the duties of >the operator and the remedy when the operator fouls up. You are aware that the operator/programmer did *not* make a draw claim? He asked if it's ok to *continue,* after the GUI's repetition info (and after he had made the move). I share your opinion that it would better, when operators can, and should, remain passive, especially when decisions of that type have to be met (claim a repetition draw or not), but when currently it's not the exact, clear & written rule (?) that operators have to remain completely passive, but when they can decide if to claim or if to continue, then I think it was ok to allow the game to continue, in that case. - Although - I know - it actually wasn't allowed to continue in that sense, but a draw claim was refuted the operator did not want to claim :-) but in effect it's the same (more or less). (It's impossible to put that whole matter into one single sentence :-)) so all discussions about it were quite hopeless from the beginning.) I know that actually there was a misunderstanding about the claim, IOW there was none and the TD thought at first Zwanzger wants to claim it. I have already critizised that (too), because in the last round of a Championship, in a game where one of the leaders participated, and in a situation decisive for the title, such misunderstandings are hardly tolerable. These are 3 factors which require the highest precision each. - But OTOH, I think the decision itself was ok after all. IMO it would not have been ok to decide like that, when Zwanzger had really wanted to claim the draw, just because he had made the move already. That could have been tolerated then, and drawn. But in that case, I guess SMK could have protested against of course, when FIDE rule 9.2 is in power... At least that's my view so far. You know much more about these things. Btw. did you know that Zwanzger, during that same game earlier, had asked the TD if he was allowed to resign (when he had a very bad position already), but was asked to continue, according to his report at the CSS Forum? http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/84889.htm (german) This was a mix of several bad circumstances to the worst moment, so inavoidably some sh** happened :-)) Regards, Mike Scheidl P.S. Under such circumstances, it would not have been perfectly satisfying, when Fritz would have been tournament winner later, either. AFAIK Shredder had already announced mate (!) in the Jonny game, before the repetion bug occured. Both had 9.5/11, but Shredder's Buchholz, or tiebreak (?), rating was slightly better (by 0.5 only). Unfortunately, the title couldn't be awarded to both, as a "salomonic" decision to share the Championship for a few month. It wouldn't have been illogical IMO, after such a tight result and keeping the Jonny problem in mind...
This page took 0.01 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.