Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:21:44 12/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2003 at 15:29:38, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 24, 2003 at 10:49:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Both sides had practical chances to win in that position based on comp-comp >games and the point is that nobody claimed that deep blue prototype had a >winning position before c4 so your words( "it most likely would have been a >simple win") are misleading. Not exactly. In almost every "equal" position, they managed to win, because of their speed. > >If you assume that deep blue prototype was clearly better than Fritz3 then you >can believe that it could be a win for deep blue prototype without the crash >but I think that it is better not to discuss about the question if deep blue >prototype was significantly better than Fritz3 when there is no way to test it. > >Uri Actually there is a good bit of data about the deep thought machine. For example, the last ACM event in Cape May New Jersey... It was _very_ strong..
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.