Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:49:31 12/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2003 at 07:55:49, Amir Ban wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 23:50:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. >> > >Let's not confuse between bugs and pretexts. > >DB was trying to avoid a quick loss when it failed, not to win. If it hadn't >failed on the c4 move, it may well have failed on the next move. I don't believe so, that position has been analyzed by many people, using GM help and computers. But bad luck happens, and it _does_ change the outcome in many cases. Another case: The CSTAL GUI changed an =N promotion to an =Q promotion. The TD made the =Q stand and it lost. Another case: At the 1977 WCCC event I was playing Belle. Somehow the P/A system would disconnect most modems when Levy gave game comments. We didn't realize what was causing the disconnects at first, but when I got disconnected, A bug in my user interface flipped the king and queen sides of the board, so that when the program (using English descriptive notation back then) said B-kb4, the interface said B-qb4. Even though the program (engine) displayed the board after each move, showing that the B-kb4 was what the engine had played, the TD (Levy) made us play the move the UI had produced, which lost the piece instantly. I didn't protest at all. The shredder draw bug is just another in a long series of such game-deciding bugs, which have been a part of computer chess since the first event in 1970. And they will likely be around in 2070. > >You need only go to last year Maastricht 2002: Junior had a repetition bug in >the 1st round against Ikarus. It allowed a threefold repetition in a better >position. > >A draw was claimed and the game was over. My point exactly. You can have a bug. You can have a hardware failure. You can have bad luck. You can play a terrible book line. You can reach an endgame your engine doesn't understand how to win. But you can _not_ have operator interference. Somehow that was allowed in this case... > >Amir > > >> >> >>>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.