Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy - According to The Gospel

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 12:14:01 12/09/03

Go up one level in this thread


Matthew Hull

On December 09, 2003 at 14:56:51, Matthew Hull wrote:

>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 didn't know how or when to claim it and it didn't claim it!
>:)
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.

You missed my point alltogether.


>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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

Call me what you will, Mr. Fundy who knows more than the top minds on the entire
planet!

You calling me illogical is a compliment!
>
>>
>>>
>>>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.