Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 17:58:30 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 19:41:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. At this point I want to see the evidence. Is there no concrete records? Also what Billing said is true. 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. You say no, but this is a very seasoned TD. I concur at this junction. >> >>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 0.09 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.