Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 08:12:05 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 09:50:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 07:53:51, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 07:36:14, Darse Billings wrote: >> >>> >>>I have been asked to contribute my views regarding the Shredder vs >>>Jonny game in Graz. (I was in Graz during the WCCC, and I've been >>>involved in similar 3-fold repetition situations in the Computer >>>Olympiad. FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded >>>by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director.) >>> >>> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1335 >>> >>>This is an interesting situation, but the ruling was entirely correct. >>> >>>The actual circumstances made the decision clear. Anyone who cannot >>>see this needs to check their logic or their knowledge of the rules. >>> >>>The hypothetical issue is more interesting: whether the operator has >>>the right to decline an opportunity to draw. >>> >>>Some people have asserted that the operator does not have that right. >>>They are wrong. >>> >>>Since the operator is given the right to claim a draw on behalf of >>>the program, the natural corollary is that it is *not obligatory* >>>for the operator to do so. Note that this discretionary privilege >>>can also lead to a *win* for the operator's program. The operator >>>is *not* a completely passive entity, nor has that ever been the >>>case in computer chess competitions. >>> >>>The rule in question dates back to a previous era when computer chess >>>was a friendly competition between gentlemen. If that is no longer >>>desirable, then the whole process of claiming a draw (as well as >>>resigning on behalf of the program) must be revisited, and be taken >>>out of the hands of the operator. >>> >>>The exact procedure for claiming a draw by 3-fold repetition is >>>covered in the FIDE rules. If a program follows those steps, then >>>the operator has no say in the matter. Most programmers have better >>>things to do than encoding every niggling detail of the FIDE rules >>>(which were developed for human players). >>> >>>Personally, I prefer to allow the programmer to do what he believes >>>to be right. If I were the arbiter, I would rule accordingly. If a >>>third party suggested or demanded that a programmer do something he >>>believes to be less than honourable, I would hope it was a bad joke, >>>and would dismiss it summarily. >>> >>>It is a sad statement that some non-cooperative participants prefer >>>to use the rules as a weapon, forcing increasingly complex rules to >>>handle minor quibbles (which is an impossible task in the limit; at >>>some point judgement and reason must come into play). >>> >>>Regardless, the case at hand is clear and unambiguous: Jonny did not >>>follow the exact steps for claiming a draw, and the operator's choice >>>to continue the game was legal. Those who have criticized the ICGA >>>on this matter should rethink their position. >>> >>>As a side note, this situation would not have arisen if the programs >>>were required to use a direct communication protocol, like that used >>>for Go competitions. We could also dispense with the physical clocks, >>>leaving the time enforcement (and other technical details, like draw >>>claims) to a referee program in the middle. This places a greater >>>burden on the programmer to satisfy the protocol, and I wouldn't >>>recommend it for friendly events like the Computer Olympiad, but >>>it is long overdue for the World Computer Chess Championship. >>> >>> - Darse. >> >>Hi, >> >>I fully agree. >>This was what I tried to tell to the people in this forum, too. >>I was not in Graz, but I know Stefan is a most correct player and programmer, so >>I have full trust him to do the right thing. >>I must also say that some people in this forum really really disappointed me a >>lot as they are not sportive at all (in my opionion) and too easy to criticize. >>Luckily they are not all, so I will continuo to read posts in this forum. >> >>I like to challenge myself, but to do it within the rules and respecting the >>opponents as well. >> >>Too many people here have the really bad habit to offend other people if they >>think different... >> >>Thanks Darse...I think this was needed to open somebody's eyes... >> >>Sandro > > >This doesn't open _any_ eyes. FIDE rules do not override specific >computer chess rules adopted for the tournament, specifically the rule >about the operator's role in the game, which does _not_ include any >"decision-making" ability. Some people's *eyes* will forever remain *shut*.
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.