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.