Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:43:01 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 20:20:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 14:52:45, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 13:27:43, Robert Hyatt 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", I agree with the ICGA decision. >>> >>>I don't have any idea what you mean. "rules are rules". The rule about >>>no operator interference has been present since the first tournament, and >>>it has been enforced in every event I have ever attended. Until now. >>> >>>> >>>>I looked at it from all angles, and it's crystal clear that the ruling for >>>>continuing the game was the correct one. >>>> >>>>The tournament was _not_ automated, and IMO shouldn't be, people have the final >>>>word, _not_ machines. >>>> >>> >>>Poppycock. Then why call it "the world computer chess championship". Why >>>not "the world advanced chess championship" where "advanced" means "computer >>>+ human assistant". The spirit of these competitions has _always_ been that >>>the competition is between the two computers. The human operators were >>>required simply to allow the two programs to communicate over the real >>>chess board. Otherwise why the _explicit_ rules enumerating what the operator >>>can do? Hint: The operator does not get to override a decision made by the >>>computer. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>When a machine can actually decide for itself, which it can't then the human can >>>>and should. >>> >>>I have no idea what you mean. The machine "did" decide that the position was >>>a draw by repetition, and _clearly_ stated this. The operator chose to ignore >>>it. That is _not_ the same thing as you are suggesting. The computer is >>>responsible for _everything_. How long to think. Which book move to >>>choose. Etc. The operator is "out of the loop" for all decision-making. >>> >>> >>No! The Machine Didn't Make A Draw Claim, By Repitition!! >> >>If you don't understand what I mean, why argue? > >Tis not I that don't understand the idea that if a window pops up >and says "3-fold repetition detected", the thing has noticed that playing >the move given repeats the position for the 3rd time, which _is_ a draw. > >What exact words does it have to use? I have been at FIDE events. I >have _never_ seen consistent wording for draw claims. "this is a draw" >is good enough for any TD I have seen. Or "this is a 3-repeat". There >is no need to say "I claim this is a 3-repeat"... > >The statement from the chess program was clear, concise, and good enough. > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>It was a "machine" decision, to foul up a won game, and humans said no! >>> >>>It was a game between two machines. Should someone have told Kasparov >>>when he made his move against Fritz "Hey, take that back, that loses >>>immediately?" >> >>Not the same thing, and I don't think it wise to elevate machines over man! >>> >>>Computers _and_ humans are both capable of making errors in a game of >>>chess. >> >>No kidding, and your point? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Actually there were two "machine" decisions that were fouled up, one from Jonny, >>>>incomplete, as it didn't know the 3 move rule draw, and 0.00 doesn't cut it, and >>>>the of course the horrible glitch in an overwhelming won position by Shredder. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Jonny had no "glitch". The engine said 0.00. It _did_ detect two-fold >>>repetition and that's enough to play the game correctly. >>> >>> >>> >>>>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! >>> >>>That will _never_ be rectified. It was changed once, and then changed back. >>>It will never go back to > 50 moves again, I am sure. >> >>Well on second thought, maybe the machine in this case anyways, should be >>listened to! >> >>But for practical reasons it should be no more than 75-100 moves for a human >>unless otherwise stated. > >It will never be changed. Humans make that rule. > > >> >>Computers which "know" book wins should be allowed to use them, no limit! > >fine in theory, but it won't happen. It did many years ago but the rule >was rescinded by popular demand of IM/GM players. Yes, I know, and I don't agree with this decision. Bloody stubborn and yes proud embarrassed humans! Contempt for computers is obvious, the other side of the issue. Terry
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.