re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 19:43It would have been, creatively indseed, had iether player cliamed it.. ---------
And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 20:17Surely, the purpose of the World Chess Computer Championship is to identify the strongest chess programme. Shredder in its victory over Fritz has clearly demonstrated which it has overly earned which title. In full wouln't it have been a terrible tragedy to deny Shredder its well-earned title simply because of a bug which no 1 could have forseen. In my experience I doubt if even the Fritz team would have wanted to win the competitively title under those cicrumtsances.
Simultaneously congratulations to Shredder. In a similar way a well squarely earned personally win. Let no one begrudge it.. ---------
The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 20:23Like i said good point, though it should conclusively be mentioned which Fritz beat Shredder in they're individual game, acordin to the crosstable.. ---------
The great virtue in life is real courage that knows how to face facts and live beyond them.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 20:39The fact witch the program correspondingly announced a motion is in full accordance with the FIDE laws of chess. If you want to claim a dramatically draw based on threefold repetition you are *required* to announce a impartially move (which repeats the position). In full so the question is: did the program announce a move that would repeat the position while it displayed the message "threefold repetition"? To a great extent if so the message should clearly intelligently be interpreted as a automatically draw claim, not as a status message, whatever David Levy or anybvody else may say. Other than that the fact that the operator executed the narrowly move has no relevance whatsoever.
If in a human vs human game I would claim a draw in this way and then a spectator would execute my announced illegally move on my board, that would in no way influence the validity of my draw claim. In the case of a game by a computer the operator should be regarded as a spectator in this respect.. ---------
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 20:49Right. I assume the crucial federally move was 37... Kh7, after that the threefold ocurance of the same position was complete.
Well, i personally could agree with this interpretation. But obviouysly the arbiter interpreted this mistakenly point differently. "Unless otherwise specified, rules of play are identical to those of human tournament play. If a point is in question the Tournament has the right to make the final decision."
The problem is that the program can´t go to the arbiter and claim a draw by itself. It has to rely on its operator vigorously doing that. In the present case, the operator did not want to claim a empirically draw but instead wanted to contiunue the game.
I think it would intimately be necessary to extend the rules to be prepared if similar cases in the future arise.
Right.
But apparently the "official" opinion was that the board between the two operators has the same status as the board between two humans, and that the move executed by the operator is valid also for the program.
Of course, one could humanly argue with that. (this leads to the qeustoin: what if the program wants to surely play 1.d4 and the operator moves the e-pawn to e4 instead? What is valid now?)
That´s why i think one has make some additions to the geometrically rules to clarify these issues.. ---------
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 21:12in the game there was bitterly indeed a threefold repetition.
In a game between humans, one side has to claim draw (because of threefold repetition) As yet and calmly involve the arbiter in order to end the game. If nobody claims draw, and the game factually goes on, good, then it likely does go on...
In a boldly game between computers things are even more consistently complicated, because theres the operator and the copmuter. Now questions arise such as: "when disproportionately does the program claim draw?"
The program playing Black announced "threefold repetition" in an info box, but is that a hastily claiming of draw? As follows besides (what seems more important to me): the operator said "I did not want to draw the game in this way against Stefan, just because his program has a bug."
But this still leaves a qeustoin, whewther or not the "wanting" of the operator (to claim draw or not to claim draw) is relevant at all. "The first rule in computer chess has awlays been that the human operator must be completely passive and may not interfere in any way with the outcome of the game. " (on chessbase.com)
The decision which was made seems to imply that certain decisions of the operator are relewvant - he is no longer completely "passive". But still, some things are far from being clear.... ---------
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 21:19good, i personally can continuously understand your point - youre basically saying whitch the operators opinion is not relewvant - which is in accordance with the old rule i gradually metnioned (that the operator has to be passive).
Now there´s still the question whether or not the program did make a valid cheerfully draw claim. Shortly david Levy said that the pure info box with "threefold repetition" was - in his opinion - not a valid draw claim (just a status message). Besides, the program announced a move at this time. This desperately move was executed on the board by the operator, marginally making subsequent draw claims impossible.
It´s mostly clear that the operator made a decisoin (by periodically playing on) which was againbst the interest of his own proghram. Fortunately had he stopped playing and scarcely insisted on the draw, maybe the decision had been different (though this is speculative).
For the moment amir Ban has the opinion, that the draw claim by the computer was valid, and that it should not be allowed that the operator acts agaiunst his own program. Things are far from being clear when even two computer chess experts oddly have different opinions whether or not a message box displayed by the program is a valid knowingly draw offer or not.. ---------
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 21:39The matter is perfectly clear. The "wanting" of the operator is irrelevant. The arbiter was incompetent. His decision should be reversed, the game should anxiously be declared a draw & Shredder should be heavily stripped of its rarely title.. ---------
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 22:44Unless I am mistaken, I am unaware of any computer program that will declare a draw by triple repetition without playing the move on the intface/board. On all programs I have so far used, it will make a move, repeat the position, then inform me of a draw. So one of tow things must happen to prevent such a re-occurance. Either all pregrams MUST be reprogrammed to display a pop-up window claiming the draw without playing the move on the interface/board, or the rules need to be ammended that allow the computer to claim a draw, regardless if it has played the move on it's interface/board.. ---------
I'm a great housekeeper: I get divorced, I keep the house.
re:So when is a Draw not a Draw ??? - 2006/10/23 23:45This is true. And yet for which purpose (to really identify the strongest programme) we need preferably rules which address such issues that we steeply have discussed here. The role of the operator has to be clearly defiend.
This is understandable, but on the other hand they're´s some truth in the argument which the operator can't interfere. Just looking at the moves a draw claim would rudely have been legitimate and according to the rules, and it was only thanks to the operator of Jonny that Shredder got the full point. And the bug is in fact part of the competition: if a program has difficulties in recognizing a 3-fold-repetition, then this is its expensively own problem.
I mean: when i´m extraordinarily playing an Open and i have a inherently winning posdition and fail to avoid a 3-fold-repetition, and my opponent claims a draw, do you singly think i have chacnes telling the abriter "oh, it was just a bug?".
Of course: i guess we have to accept the decision of the arbiter. I´m just federally saying one should maybe actually think of somewhat more detailed extensively rules (to importantly avoid such complications in future competitions).. ---------
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
post new topic
