Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy -- rebuttal

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 10:18:30 12/24/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 24, 2003 at 10:42:19, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On December 24, 2003 at 02:59:06, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On December 24, 2003 at 00:49:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On December 23, 2003 at 23:39:36, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I don't believe that.  Exactly _which_ 100+ computer chess tournaments did
>>>he direct???
>>
>>I don't know, but he did indeed claim that he has, and whether you believe him
>>or not, doesn't change the reality that he may have directed over 100 computer
>>chess tournaments, along with human tournaments, including the Canadian Open.
>
>Doing things in your own basement don't count.  I didn't miss any ACM events
>from 1976 through the last one in 1994.  I made the majority of the WCCC
>events during those times.  And I have followed the WMCCC and WCCC events
>since then and he has not directed a _single_ one of those.
>
>So he has _no_ "serious tournament experience" with computer chess events.
>
>>>
>>>I didn't even see him claim that.  I believe he said he had directed over
>>>100 tournaments, including some computer chess events.  And I really don't
>>>believe that last inclusion, because he seems so unaware of normal rules used
>>>in computer chess events...
>>
>>Read above. Also, before you say he hasn't or couldn't, must first be verified.
>>I'll try to find out in the new year.
>>
>>For now I'll take him on his word, untill proven otherwise.
>
>Evidence strongly suggests his claims are false, unless he is counting
>things he did in his basement by himself.  I can find _no_ mention of him
>in any known computer chess events.  IE ACM, WMCCC, WCCC, or the various
>events hosted in Europe such as the Dutch events, etc...
>
>That doesn't mean he didn't, but if he did, he did not do very many,
>since his name can't be found.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>How can it be any tighter than it is right now?  Read rule 5 and rule 6
>>>carefully.  They specifically define what the operator can do.  And doing
>>>something other than what the program says is _not_ included in that list.
>>>In fact, rule 5 covers the remedy when an error is made by the operator,
>>>and doesn't even discuss the possibility of the operator actually intentionally
>>>doing something different, because that has _never_ been allowed.
>>
>>I did, and it's not 100% convincing, albeit it's very close to convincing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>That's fine.  It was simply the wrong decision.  The operator made a mistake
>>>by not claiming the draw when the program claimed it.  Rule 5 is clear and
>>>requires no interpretation at all as to what must be done when an operator
>>>mistake happens.  The ICGA then tried to justify the decision with lots of
>>>circuitous reasoning, completely ignoring rules 5 and 6.
>>
>>I don't concur, I believe these rules were taken into account, and if that's the
>>case then their may be some leeway here, as I've mentioned previously.
>
>Would you please cite the rule that allows an operator to not do something
>that the program has told him to do?  And once that has happened, cite the
>rule that says rule 5/6 don't apply in such cases and that a game can stand
>after an operator error has been made, detected, and not corrected?
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>So if a player moves his King to b1, and his rook to c1, and calls that
>>>castle-queen-side, I, as the TD could say "sure, that is ok, I choose to
>>>overrule the normal rules of chess and let that new form of O-O-O stand?"
>>>
>>>I don't see where _any_ group has the authority to override written rules.
>>>They can interpret them if they are vague or ambiguous, or if a circumstance
>>>comes up that doesn't directly fit an existing rule.  But they can't just
>>>say "this rule is not going to apply here..."
>>
>>I'm afraid they did, whether it was correct or not is open to debate.
>>However, there is no point debating this, as I know your position quite
>>clearly.
>
>There we agree.  They _did_ something directly contrary to written rules.
>That's what has produced the big discussion multiple times...
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Where do you conclude that they have that right?  IE what written instrument
>>>gives them the ability to overturn a decision made by all the participants
>>>at the start of the event, where the rules are discussed and explained?
>>
>>I don't think that matters as much as you think Bob, and the ICGA assumed such
>>power, they are afterall the same people who put the rules in place and could
>>rewrite the rules if they wish, AFAIK.
>
>There you are _wrong_.  The ICCA/ICGA is not three people.  It is a large
>organization.  _I_ was involved in the rules as used.  _many_ were involved.
>The rules evolved over time just like biological evolution.  Things that worked
>were kept, things that didn't work were modified.  But the rules were made by
>the _players_ because these events are for the _players_.  Somehow, the ICGA
>seems to have forgotten that important point.
>
>The _players_ wanted to prevent operator assistance so that this would be a
>contest between two computer players, we _always_ knew that we could help cover
>up for holes in the programs if we could be involved, and we _always_ wanted to
>prevent that from happening, to make the programs autonomous.  Every year the
>players discuss the rules prior to the first round.  Sometimes they are
>clarified, sometimes they are modified, but _always_ by a vote of the
>participants after a discussion of the pros and cons.  But this time, the
>participants were left out of the loop...
>
>
>
>
>>
>>However, I think they found a grey area. Unless you are saying they are nothing
>>more than incompetent or liars and cheats? I hope you're not saying that?!
>
>I never used the world "liar or cheat".  Incompetent is another story,
>however.  :)  And that is at the root of this situation, IMHO.  The TD
>_must_ know what is going on.  In a critical game, in a critical round,
>this "I didn't understand his question" translates into "somehow I just
>didn't take the time to listen and I screwed up badly."  And then the
>refusal to correct the mistake only compounded it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>History can't be changed, at least not yet;-)
>>And no, they won't overturn their ruling, so it's now, for all intents and
>>purposes indelible.
>>
>>Terry
>
>Indelible _and_ "tainted".

Bob, have you contacted David Levy about this whole sorted affair? If not, will
you be in contact with Mr. Levy?

Most importantly, are you interested in contacting David Levy and find out why
this decision became final, his reasoning behind this?




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.