Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:29:24 12/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2003 at 22:05:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 24, 2003 at 20:21:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Saying "it most likely would have been a >simple win" suggest not winning because of being a better player but winning >because of a winning position. > Think about this. If Crafty gets into a near endgame position that is pretty even, against something old like gnuchess, it will likely win, because it simply plays better endings that gnuchess. It doesn't need a winning position, just an equal position where its search and endgame knowledge will eventually find a way to win. That was what I referred to with Deep Thought in 1995. It was that much better, that all it needed was a relatively equal position and its way superior search would turn the game into a win. It did it over and over and over... > >> >>> >>>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.. > >Data about games of previous years against programs is not a proof because >commercial programs used weaker hardware in previous years and super computers >often had bugs because of lack of time to test. We are talking about 1994. And then Hong Kong in 1995. there was no _huge_ commercial improvement in that short time-span, neither hardware nor software. DT didn't have a lack of test time. It was a dedicated machine that played chess all day long. Deep Blue was a different issue as it used an IBM SP supercomputer as the base platform, and added chess hardware to it. Deep Thought just ran on a simple machine (sun workstation, later an IBM RS6000 workstation). > >Comparing based on games against humans is also a problem because humans had the >disadvantage of not having the machine at home to prepare(Fritz3 with the same >hardware did the IM norm in one tournament and I read that it did some draws >against GM's when it had bigger problems against part of the weaker players who >simply prepared better because they bought Fritz3 when the GM's did not prepare >and trust their skill that was enough only for getting a draw). I'm not talking about games vs humans. I am talking about the annual ACM event that was held every year through 1994. DT played in them as did many commercial programs... DT won 'em all. > >I do not claim that deep blue prototype was not significantly better than >Fritz3(p90). >It is possible that it was significantly better but we have not enough data to >prove it so discussion about it is pointless and I think that it is better to >assume nothing about it. > >Uri In the case of DT vs fritz(P90) I'm not assuming _anything_. Any more than if I said Crafty on the quad opteron would be way stronger than fritz (P90). It would not be a contest, and without playing the match I could predict the outcome with near certainty, with no "assumptions" required.. That was my point above...
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.