Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:56:51 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 14:38:02, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 13:34:37, Matthew Hull 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", >> >> >>How does one decide that? > >You don't understand? Too bad. >> >>> I agree with the ICGA decision. >>>I looked at it from all angles, and it's crystal clear that the ruling for >>>continuing the game was the correct one. >> >>I reached the opposite conclusion. > >No, you just like to argue, it's a sexual power thing, you have going in that >so-called "logical mind" of yours. >>> >>>The tournament was _not_ automated, and IMO shouldn't be, people have the final >>>word, _not_ machines. >> >> >>Then if the operator does not like the move his software has indicated, he can >>just change it, right? After all, people have the final word, according to you. >> Is this rule of yours etched in stone? > >You failed at the Bar, didn't you? >> >> >>> >>>When a machine can actually decide for itself, which it can't then the human can >>>and should. >> >> >>The "machine" flagged a three fold repitition. Game over. But as you say, if >>the human does not like it that his software flagged the draw, he can just >>ignore that. And if the program sees a winning move because the other program >>blundered due to a bug, then the operator can override that winning move and >>substitue a losing one. After all, the human should have the final word, not >>the machine. It's not the software that's playing chess ultimately, its the >>operator. (??????????) > >The computer didn't KNOW it was a 3rd reapeat! Then why did it show 0.00 in the eval? Hmmmm? Because...because...it saw a repitition??? :) >> >> >>> >>>It was a "machine" decision, to foul up a won game, and humans said no! >> >> >>The contest was between "machines", not humans. You seem to have forgotten >>that. The player is the machine. If the machine fouls up, the machine pays the >>price. Game over, dude. > >Humans build and programme the machines, and intervine when necessary. > >Maybe we should evacuate Blue Mountain, and let the Machines get the job done!! Blue Mountain is analogous to Advanced Chess, not CC. Nice try though. >> >>> >>>Actually there were two "machine" decisions that were fouled up, one from Jonny, >>>incomplete, as it didn't know the 3 move rule draw, >> >> >>The engine and GUI are one. After all, in some engine/GUI combinations, the GUI > >I didn't say otherwise. You seem to think you know, but you don't know. > >>actually handles the opening phase of the game. Engine and GUI are the chess >>playing software. Your ignoring of the GUI-flagged-reptition is then manifestly >>bogus. > >No your arguement is bogus. > > If a GUI can play half the moves in a game (the opening), then it can >>surely flag repetition draws. The operator can no more ignore that than he can >>the GUI decisions about opening moves. > >It didn't did it?! >> >> >>>and 0.00 doesn't cut it, and >>>the of course the horrible glitch in an overwhelming won position by Shredder. >> >> >>Yes. Buggy software should pay the price of it's own bugs. That's part of >>computer chess. You snooze, you lose. Same with human blunders. >> >>IMO, your view on this issue is busted six ways to Sunday. > >ROTFL! MH Does that mean Mentally Hand.... OK, I'll accept that. And since I easily busted your illogic, where does that leave you? Total Mor.. ;) Matt > >> >>MH >> >>> >>>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!
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.