Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 19:50:25 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 22:27:48, Nicholas Cooper wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 20:58:30, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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? > >Yes, the facts are agreed upon... the only bone of contention is the >interpretation of the facts... though given the clear state of the rules, I >can't see what everyone is arguing about?? > >>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. > >Have you ever considered that you are the one who needs to rethink your >position? The rules are based on the principle that the operator is entirely >passive, so the blatant alteration of the game (and championship) outcome that >occured because of operator intervention is against the rules, end of story... >you may not like it but the rules are the rules. Apparently, these rules were NOT CLEAR to some of the participants! Rules are not absolutes, in all cases, and this case is a mess, there can be no other ruling in this case, it's too late! I consider all possibilities, and have come to the most sensible conclusion. When you and the others can see through all this obfuscation, you'll see why! I'm sure if I delve far enough I may find something that vindicates Shredder completely, and imagine the arguements that would have been made if Jonny drew! Remeber, Shredder had a Forced Mate, and I'm willing to wager Jonny saw it as well, before the repeated moves! If that is so, the game should have ended, unless there was no forced mate, but there was. I'd love to have viewed that game live, with readouts! > >>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 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.