Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:03:26 12/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2003 at 13:18:30, Terry McCracken wrote: >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? I doubt that I will contact any of them any more. They know my feelings, I am sure. Otherwise why would they put up Darse to come here and try to feebly justify their reasoning? > >Most importantly, are you interested in contacting David Levy and find out why >this decision became final, his reasoning behind this? Not really, because I can't envision _any_ reasoning that would countermand the rules being used. David has made the _right_ decision many times in the past. But David didn't, to the best of my knowledge, make _this_ decision. The TD did. This particular TD has made more bogus decisions in the few years he has been the TD, than were made in _all_ the previous ICCA/ICGA events where either Levy or Valvo were the TDs. That should be more than enough information for them to make the right conclusion and find a TD that is more in tune with the TD responsibilities. I've known Jaap for years. I like him, and have chatted with him often. But that _still_ doesn't make these kinds of decisions right. If I had made such a decision I would expect the same kind of negative feed-back, because I would _know_ it was a bad decision. I'm not so interested in the "why" because there is no valid "why". More interesting is "how" it was allowed to happen in the first place. I have had to ask Mike Valvo a question on _many_ occasions. We _never_ had some of this "I didn't understand the question" stuff. He simply wouldn't answer until he understood, which is the way it _should_ be done by a competent TD. That is what the TD is there for. To pair the rounds, and handle the problems that come up during or after a round. He did pair the rounds, it seems...
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.