The game they let Shredder have. Clearly this was a draw by 3 fold rep.

(89) Shredder - Jonny [B80]
WCCC Graz (11), 29.11.2003
[Radio ChessBase]


1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.f4 0-0 8.Qf3 e5
9.Nf5 Bxf5 10.exf5 e4 11.Qh3 h6 12.Bh4 Qc7 13.g4 d5 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5 Nh5
16.0-0-0 Rc8 17.Bg3 Nf4 18.Bxf4 Qxf4+ 19.Kb1 Bxg5 20.f6 Nc6 21.fxg7 Kxg7
22.Be2 d4 23.Rhf1 Qh4 24.Qf5 dxc3 25.Rg1 Kf8 26.Rxg5 Ne7 27.Qf6 Qh7 28.Rd7
Ng6 29.Rxb7 Qg7 30.Qd6+ Kg8 31.Rxf7 Qxf7 32.Rxg6+ Kh7 33.Rg4 Rab8 34.Rh4+
Kg8 35.Rg4+ Kh7 36.Rh4+ Kg8 37.Rg4+ Kh7 38.Bc4 Rxb2+ 39.Ka1 Rxc4 40.Rh4+ Kg8
41.Qd8+ Qf8 42.Rg4+ Kf7 43.Qd7+ Qe7 44.Rf4+ Kg6 45.Qxe7 Rxa2+ 46.Kxa2 Ra4+
47.Kb3 Rb4+ 48.Kxb4 a5+ 49.Kxc3 a4 50.Qf6+ Kh5 51.Rh4# 1-0

For more info read the following:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1335

BS IMHO

Hello,

in the game there was indeed a threefold repetition.

In a game between humans, one side has to claim draw (because of threefold
repetition) and involve the arbiter in order to end the game. If nobody
claims draw, and the game goes on, well, then it does go on...

In a game between computers things are even more complicated, because theres
the operator and the computer.
Now questions arise such as: "when does the program claim draw?"

The program playing Black announced "threefold repetition" in an info box,
but is that a claiming of draw?
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 question, whether 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 always 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 relevant - he is no longer completely "passive". But still,
some things are far from being clear...

regards

Oliver

Oliver Maas wrote:

But this still leaves a question, whether 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 always 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 relevant - he is no longer completely "passive". But
still, some things are far from being clear...


The matter is perfectly clear. The "wanting" of the operator is irrelevant.
The arbiter was incompetent. His decision should be reversed, the game
should be declared a draw and Shredder should be stripped of its title.

Ted

The matter is perfectly clear. The "wanting" of the operator is
irrelevant.
The arbiter was incompetent. His decision should be reversed, the game
should be declared a draw and Shredder should be stripped of its title.

Hi Ted,

well, i personally can understand your point - youre basically saying that
the operators opinion
is not relevant - which is in accordance with the old rule i mentioned (that
the operator has to be passive).

Now there´s still the question whether or not the program did make a valid
draw claim.
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 move was executed on the board
by the operator, making subsequent draw claims impossible.

It´s clear that the operator made a decision (by playing on) which was
against the interest of his own program.
Had he stopped playing and insisted on the draw, maybe the decision had been
different (though this is speculative).

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 against his own
program. Things are far from being clear when even two computer chess
experts have different opinions whether or not a message box displayed by
the program is a valid draw offer or not.

regards

Oliver

In ,
Oliver Maas typed:
The matter is perfectly clear. The "wanting" of the operator is
irrelevant. The arbiter was incompetent. His decision should be
reversed, the game should be declared a draw and Shredder should be
stripped of its title.

Hi Ted,

well, i personally can understand your point - youre basically saying
that the operators opinion
is not relevant - which is in accordance with the old rule i
mentioned (that the operator has to be passive).

Now there´s still the question whether or not the program did make a
valid draw claim.
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 move was executed on the board
by the operator, making subsequent draw claims impossible.


The fact that the program announced a move is in full accordance with the
FIDE laws of chess. If you want to claim a draw based on threefold
repetition you are *required* to announce a move (which repeats the
position). So the question is: did the program announce a move that would
repeat the position while it displayed the message "threefold repetition"?
If so the message should clearly be interpreted as a draw claim, not as a
status message, whatever David Levy or anybody else may say. The fact that
the operator executed the 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 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.

Ted

"Seymore Butts" wrote in message . ..
The game they let Shredder have. Clearly this was a draw by 3 fold rep.

It would have been, indeed, had either player claimed it.

Jack Rudd

Hi Ted,

The fact that the program announced a move is in full accordance with the
FIDE laws of chess. If you want to claim a draw based on threefold
repetition you are *required* to announce a move (which repeats the
position). So the question is: did the program announce a move that would
repeat the position while it displayed the message "threefold repetition"?

Right. I assume the crucial move was 37... Kh7, after which the threefold
occurance of the same position was complete.

If so the message should clearly be interpreted as a draw claim, not as a
status message, whatever David Levy or anybody else may say. The fact that
the operator executed the move has no relevance whatsoever.

Well, i personally could agree with this interpretation. But obviously the
arbiter
interpreted this point differently. "Unless otherwise specified, rules of
play are identical
to those of human tournament play. If a point is in question the Tournament
Director
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 doing that. In the present case, the operator
did not want
to claim a draw but instead wanted to continue the game.

I think it would be necessary to extend the rules to be prepared
if similar cases in the future arise.

If in a human vs human game I would claim a draw in this way and then a
spectator would execute my announced 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.

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 argue with that. (this leads to the question: what if
the program wants
to 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 rules to clarify these
issues.

regards

Oliver

Surely, the purpose of the World Chess Computer Championship is to
identify the strongest chess programme. Shredder in its victory over
Fritz has clearly demonstrated that it has earned that title. Wouln't
it have been a terrible tragedy to deny Shredder its well-earned title
simply because of a bug that no one could have forseen. I doubt if
even the Fritz team would have wanted to win the title under those
circumstances.

Congratulations to Shredder. A well earned win. Let no one begrudge
it.

Big Brother.

Hello.

Surely, the purpose of the World Chess Computer Championship is to
identify the strongest chess programme. Shredder in its victory over
Fritz has clearly demonstrated that it has earned that title.

This is true. And yet for that purpose (to identify the strongest programme)
we need rules that address such issues which we have discussed here.
The role of the operator has to be clearly defined.

Wouln't
it have been a terrible tragedy to deny Shredder its well-earned title
simply because of a bug that no one could have forseen. I doubt if
even the Fritz team would have wanted to win the title under those
circumstances.
Congratulations to Shredder. A well earned win. Let no one begrudge
it.

This is understandable, but on the other hand there´s some truth in the
argument that the operator should not interfere. Just looking at the moves
a draw claim would 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 own problem.

I mean: when i´m playing an Open and i have a winning position and fail to
avoid a 3-fold-repetition, and my opponent claims a draw, do you think
i have chances telling the arbiter "oh, it was just a bug?".

Of course: i guess we have to accept the decision of the arbiter. I´m just
saying
one should maybe think of somewhat more detailed rules (to avoid such
complications
in future competitions).

regards

Oliver

"Big Brother" wrote in message
om...
Surely, the purpose of the World Chess Computer Championship is to
identify the strongest chess programme. Shredder in its victory over
Fritz has clearly demonstrated that it has earned that title. Wouln't
it have been a terrible tragedy to deny Shredder its well-earned title
simply because of a bug that no one could have forseen. I doubt if
even the Fritz team would have wanted to win the title under those
circumstances.

Congratulations to Shredder. A well earned win. Let no one begrudge
it.

Big Brother.

Good point, though it should be mentioned that Fritz beat Shredder in their
individual game, according to the crosstable.

Matt