Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:41:14 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 19:14:11, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 18:30:29, Amir Ban 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. >> >>You shed no new light and introduce no new viewpoint, so your entire post is >>redundant. >> >>In addition, although you were in Graz, you seem to be unaware of the details of >>what happened, and base yourself entirely on the Chessbase story. >> >>It appears that the entire thing hinged on the freak fact that the TD did not >>understand Zwanzger when he asked permission to continue, and that this >>misunderstanding persisted right through the final decision. >> >>So Zwanzger himself thought he needed permission to do what he did, and does not >>share your opinion of the latitude he has. The TD told me that had he understood >>the request, he would have denied it, contrary to your utter derision of such a >>choice. >> >>In computer chess, we do not allow operators to throw games, or to act in any >>way except in the best interest of their program. >> >>At the end, the decision (back-engineered to suit what was revealed after it was >>made) means that since improper conduct was not stopped in time, there's no >>choice but to allow its result to stand. >> >>I hope you don't apply this principle in any tournament you direct. >> >>Amir > > >I think he knows a little more about Tournament Directing than you do. > >Why don't you investigate his credentials, rather than being rude and sarcastic? > >BTW how could this be a misunderstanding to which nothing could be done to >reverse the decision? > >Did Jonny actually claim the draw? Or did it only read out a 0.00 eval? >That IMO is very important. If Jonny didn't know 3rd repeat rules, then IMO, >unless the programmer and or operator claim it, then tough luck. This has been described N+1 times. Now N+2. The program popped up a dialog box that said "3-fold repetition detected" or something to that effect. Before the game could go on, the operator had to click <OK> to show that he had been informed... There is _little_ lattitude with that happening. > >I'm not saying they should throw the game either, but the ICGA IMO judged >correctly. > >Also, if it did claim 3rd repeat it must be claimed before the move is made and >this should apply to computers as it applies to humans. > >Backing it up is also wrong IMO it should be recognized on the spot! >If a computer can't adhere to FIDE rules, tough. They apply to humans so >machines IMO can't be exempt! > >Terry
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.