Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:02:59 12/24/03
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.) No matter how manny smileys you may add your perception remains false. You are basically exloitating that we have a certain complexity in the problem. But complexity doesn't mean we can't solve it. Logic and science basics do apply here. Of course you can't put it into a single sentence but that is not neccessary either. But the insulting in your message is this. There is a basically trivial solution to the whole problem. Bob Hyatt has presented it. But you refuse to read it. Bob showed how the TD must have handled the case. You cannot argue that the TD had no chance to handle the case on the known criteria and therefore he made a new decision which you also find wrong but likewise defendable. Basically you say the same nonsense we heard from Darse and Terry. But all three of you refuse to read and work through what Bob Hyatt wrote. > >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. Here it goes again. The truth is the decision was NOT ok. The decision violated the passivity rule and that's enough to make it false. How that xould have been avoided was also explained by Bob. But it's crystal clear why nobody wants to read it. Yes, because it proves that the TD decision was a big fault and a serious cheat. What you write here about a misunderstanding of what the operator had wanted - all that is completely uninteresting. The operator has no wants or intentions other than following the indications of his program! Period! > >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. No, FIDE is not in power. LOL You take the arguments following your actual needs. But the rule say that the program gives a sign for the 3-fold and then the operator MUST inform the TD. Period! The TD must NOT analyse what the operator "wants" but what the program has said in the crucial moment. So, by moving backwards the whole case could have been solved properly. > >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 :-)) Pardon me?! Why a question earlier in that round should have defined that later trouble must have appeared??? Apparently you are seeking for excuses for a complete messing up by the TD. > >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... Mike, your messages are usually very helpful and you are a careful writer with all the AFAIKs IMOs and so on. But - to my sadness, you either can't see the truth or you want to intentionally screw the whole case. Since when a certain fair outcome had something to do with former merits? You lose completely the track of a rational debate. Yes, you are correct, it would have been sad to see Shredder draw due to a stupid bug. But Mike, is that here about computerchess or a gathering of Christians who decide if a human being should go to Heavens or to Hell? You are such a thourough writer, but in case you participated in a correct-writing-olympiad a single typo due to a bug could lose the title for you!!! Would you then claim compassion from the other participants??? Or do you claim extra rights for Stefan??? Your personal interest in mind I can well understand why you defend the decisions in Graz because commercially it is the best that Shredder won after Fritz had all the PR in the Kasparov event. But why the TD decisions should therefore be correct that is beyond rational understanding. Ok, you wished that it were ok, but wishful thinking has no place in science. All the best, Rolf
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.