Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:50:27 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 23:12:28, Mike S. wrote: >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). Yes. And that is the problem I have been pointing out. The chess program said "three fold repetition detected." The operator has no choice but to relay that to the opponent and TD, and end the game. > >I share your opinion that it would better, when operators can, and should, >remain passive, I don't understand the above "when operators can and should ..." By the rules that is _always_. They _never_ get to make any actual decision about the game. They only relay what the program says. >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). I don't see where you get the impression that an operator can decide if to claim or continue. That is simply _not_ allowed. That is why the TD always announces that draws and resignations _must_ be passed through the TD first, so that the operator can't get into the loop and influence the outcome. The TD simply doesn't allow it. Or at least not until the blunder in Graz he didn't. > >(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. How can it be OK when the operator _has_ to do what the program instructs, and then once he did not, the rule says that the game has to be backed up to the point where the operator did not follow the program's instruction, and resumed with the corrected move. It seems perfectly black and white to me... > >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. FIDE rules don't apply in that context. Because the _computer_ is not making the moves. IE what if a blind player is playing a game, and tells his proxy "play Nge2" but the proxy plays "Nce2" instead? The move is wrong, and it is fixed. Why would anyone even think about penalizing the blind player for his proxy's mistake? Blind chess rules cover this. The computer tells the operator what to do. Most operators know how to properly claim a draw, and they do it correctly since that is the operator's responsibility, to implement the computer's instructions correctly on the board, including the clock, which no computer program says "hit the button after making the move" because we all know that the operator knows that detail. > >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? Yes, and that has happened to me and it is perfectly normal. The operator can request that the TD allow him to resign when it appears truly hopeless, but the TD _always_ says "play on until the actual board position shows that you are dead lost." Many programs _never_ resign, which is perfectly OK. Rules don't require it. > >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 > Yes, but it would have been nice had it been fixed, which _could_ have been accomplished. > >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. Would you like some prior examples of this happening? I can cite dozens of games that were won but lost due to a bug. For example, perhaps the most famous was the deep thought vs Fritz game in Hong Kong. DT got disconnected and when things were restarted, it had to move quickly and made a gross blunder that lost the game. It was recorded as a loss, when it most likely would have been a simple win had the disconnect not happened. Was that fair? Yes. Was it the best thing that could have happened for the event? Nope. But it _did_ follow the rules, and no one complained at all. This is a similar case. >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... The tie-break wasn't used. They had a playoff, which is better, but fast games are still not the way to tie-break a slow event. And were the rules followed, the tie break would not have been needed. :)
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.