Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 20:56:22 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). > >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... there's another issue here too - why are they playing an 11(is that correct?) round swiss with 14 particpants?? -- is they are going to play Swiss - then play the 5 rounder (for 16 or less participants) where all the top players playing each other in the last round, that way you don't have Johny ( who can care less if he wins, loses or draws) playing Shredder in the last round, I know one thing , if Crafty or Fritz or any of the top engines (even Kasparov) were playing Shredder -- they would have all taken the draw, as they should...
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.