Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:39:36 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 11:46:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 02:43:38, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>>> - 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 > >I'll give you the _same_ answer I gave him. > >The TD is obligated to do the following, in order, when a dispute happens: > >(1) apply the tournament rules if they fit the circumstance(s) as it happens. > >(2) apply past precedent if the rules have an ambiguity and similar >circumstances have come up previously and you have already reached a >conclusion and applied that conclusion. > >(3) look at the rules, the spirit of the rules, the spirit of the event, and >try to figure out what the original goal of the event and rules was, and >then try to find an interpretation of the rules that upholds this "spirit". > >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. Thanks but I already read all of this, repeating it doesn't make it absolute. Darse claims he has directed more than 100 computer chess tournaments, and in some cases came across this problem, and it had been handled in a similar manner as Jonny-Shredder. If that is the case, and I too would like to see these cases, it would have also set a precedent. So, where does that leave us? IMO, it leaves a crack in the door, and the only thing left is to leave it ajar or close it tight so this _can't_ happen again. I think the best thing is close it tight, so there can be no waffling. Others may feel differently, but something has to change to avoid this kind of mess in the future. The reason I feel the decision the ICGA made was correct, was all the discrepancies along the way. If the TD had understood the problem correctly, it's most likely none of this would have taken place. Although Darse says something different here if he had been the TD, and I'm not going to choose a side on this anymore, as that creates more problems, and I think we have had enough problems over an otherwise simple case which really wasn't that simple. The programmer appeared ignorant of the rules, and when he posed such a strange question to the TD he simply didn't understand it, came over to the board, said the move had been played, no draw. So we have two people not understanding the problem due to lack of communication, both with the rules, (the programmer) and the TD, (what really happened), so the game continues till Shredder forces the issue. Moreover, I'm not clear what Stephan knew at this point, so it may have come has a surprise that he _drew_ (by computer rules) before winning?! This is very messy and I for one wouldn't want to force the game back to an earlier stage, just before Jonnys operator played Kh7. This appears to be an odd case, which may have occured before, but a case most wouldn't want to touch. However, a ruling had to be made when _all_ the facts came to light, and it went 2-1 in favour of Shredder by the ICGA, not the TD or what have you. It appears in such a case, the rule makers, the (ICGA) can and did overturn the standard procedure, as it became more than a standard case in their minds. My take on this is simple, the ICGA which are the rule makers, have the power to use the slightest ambiguity, to make a ruling which appears contradictory to all the rules they cited. This appears to be their right, and they exercised that right. I feel that in the future, as I stated earlier, is to find a way to make this type of situation virtually impossible and to carry on from this point forward. Terry
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.