Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:52:45 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 13:27:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 12:54:01, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 11:59:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 11:12:05, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>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*. >>> >>> >>>When the rules are crystal clear, and haven't changed for _years_. I don't >>>need "open eyes" to recall the rules, nor how they were misapplied in this >>>ridiculous decision... >> >>These rules are not "Etched In Stone", I agree with the ICGA decision. > >I don't have any idea what you mean. "rules are rules". The rule about >no operator interference has been present since the first tournament, and >it has been enforced in every event I have ever attended. Until now. > >> >>I looked at it from all angles, and it's crystal clear that the ruling for >>continuing the game was the correct one. >> >>The tournament was _not_ automated, and IMO shouldn't be, people have the final >>word, _not_ machines. >> > >Poppycock. Then why call it "the world computer chess championship". Why >not "the world advanced chess championship" where "advanced" means "computer >+ human assistant". The spirit of these competitions has _always_ been that >the competition is between the two computers. The human operators were >required simply to allow the two programs to communicate over the real >chess board. Otherwise why the _explicit_ rules enumerating what the operator >can do? Hint: The operator does not get to override a decision made by the >computer. > > > > >>When a machine can actually decide for itself, which it can't then the human can >>and should. > >I have no idea what you mean. The machine "did" decide that the position was >a draw by repetition, and _clearly_ stated this. The operator chose to ignore >it. That is _not_ the same thing as you are suggesting. The computer is >responsible for _everything_. How long to think. Which book move to >choose. Etc. The operator is "out of the loop" for all decision-making. > > No! The Machine Didn't Make A Draw Claim, By Repitition!! If you don't understand what I mean, why argue? > > >> >>It was a "machine" decision, to foul up a won game, and humans said no! > >It was a game between two machines. Should someone have told Kasparov >when he made his move against Fritz "Hey, take that back, that loses >immediately?" Not the same thing, and I don't think it wise to elevate machines over man! > >Computers _and_ humans are both capable of making errors in a game of >chess. No kidding, and your point? > > > > > >> >>Actually there were two "machine" decisions that were fouled up, one from Jonny, >>incomplete, as it didn't know the 3 move rule draw, and 0.00 doesn't cut it, and >>the of course the horrible glitch in an overwhelming won position by Shredder. >> > > >Jonny had no "glitch". The engine said 0.00. It _did_ detect two-fold >repetition and that's enough to play the game correctly. > > > >>P.S. The "Fifty Move" rule is another issue which has been mentioned, and it >>must be ratified as there are positions that take over 220 moves to win! > >That will _never_ be rectified. It was changed once, and then changed back. >It will never go back to > 50 moves again, I am sure. Well on second thought, maybe the machine in this case anyways, should be listened to! But for practical reasons it should be no more than 75-100 moves for a human unless otherwise stated. Computers which "know" book wins should be allowed to use them, no limit!
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.