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

"Seymore Butts" wrote:

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]



You miss the most interesting!

WSe have an even worse scandal. I read on the ChessBase webpage (German
edition) that the operator, who also is the programmer IMO, thought it was
"better" that "he" [the operator+author, NOT the prog!] didn't spoil SHREDDER
and SMK the opportunity to play for the title. With a draw, it is clear, that
JUNIOR would have been second.

What do we see here?

A typical example for the climate in our scene. It is dominated by a sort of
brown-nosing style. Not enough, we have a sort of authoritative milieu where in
the business ChessBase is dominating [in principle all programmers with a money
greed seek the financial harbour of ChessBase GUI for their engines] and in the
sports scene basically IM David Levy is dominating with his buddy Fred Friedel,
who stays behind the curtain but who, with the economical power of ChessBase,
has the biggest possibilities.

That is clearly to be seen today. This youngest kid in the tournament already
adopted the slave status. Without being asked or forced, he followed the
implicite rules. For what? Well, for later recompensation for himself.

This is not about unallowed help for SHREDDER or SMK, it is the insinuated
obedience of the youngest member!

Now we can understand why FRITZ played Kasparov, another buddy of Friedel. At
this tournament normally all had been prepared for BRUTUS. Because such a
project would give the highest profit in the business if it could be
merchandised. Because of the hardware which can't be copied and which is almost
10 times more expensive.

The engine of Jonny reclaimed a draw but its author didn't accept and continued
- in a lost position for Johnny. What a scandal, because it was SHREDDER which
played for the draw.

The operator and author can't play a different move against the intention of
his program!

The whole tournament is now a fake - after the ban of LIST, some points without
play and now the present by a young kid.

Rolf

Check your maths!
There is only ever the same position twice in this game!
Remember that it also has to be the same player to move!

"Seymore Butts" skrev i meddelandet
...

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


"Seymore Butts" wrote in message
...

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

You're right,
my apologies.

"Seymore Butts" skrev i meddelandet
.. .
For more info read the following:

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

BS IMHO


"Seymore Butts" wrote in message
...

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

Seymore Butts wrote:
For more info read the following:

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

BS IMHO


"Seymore Butts" wrote in message
...

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





Yes it was a draw by three fold repetition. The final decision to
allow the win by Shredder despite the bug that allowed the repetition,
is completely wrong. The game should have been drawn. The organizers are
showing some dubious ethics, by allowing human intervention to decide a
silicon match.
If your program is buggy then you should suffer the consequences of
your faulty programming.

Mondo wrote:

Yes it was a draw by three fold repetition.

The Rules of Chess mandate that a claim has to be made to this effect.

The final decision to
allow the win by Shredder despite the bug that allowed the repetition,
is completely wrong. The game should have been drawn.

The program (and, then, on behalf of the program, the operator) must
claim the draw. As I understand, the Johnny program detected the
threefold repetition. It could just be status information on the screen,
in much the same way as it "detects" being in check. The question is
whether this constitutes a "claim" by the program, which should then be
executed by the human operator.

This is not a black-and-white type situation. The rules should be more
clear on what constitutes a "claim". For example, they could stipulate
that if a program "claims", it should show a certain phrase, and refuse
to play on.

The organizers are showing some dubious ethics, by allowing human
intervention to decide a silicon match.

They would equally be blamed if they judged the game a draw. In that
case, too, human intervention would decide a silicon match.

The only good that can come out of this is that the rules will be
clearer in the next tournament.`

If your program is buggy then you should suffer the consequences of
your faulty programming.

The contest is not about who has the buggiest software. The tournament
director would be unethical indeed if this consideration would play any
role in his decision.

Regards,
Sidney

"Anders Lang" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Check your maths!
There is only ever the same position twice in this game!
Remember that it also has to be the same player to move!

You are not right.
Put the game in Fritz and click on the move 33, 35 and 37 from black. The
same position!
Please look in Fritz under help Chess rules 9.2a

/Frits


"Seymore Butts" skrev i meddelandet
...

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

Anders Lang wrote:

Check your maths!
There is only ever the same position twice in this game!
Remember that it also has to be the same player to move!

After move 33... Rb8 (white to move)

1rr5/p4q1k/3Q4/8/4p1R1/2p5/PPP1B2P/1K6 w - -

After move 35... Kh7 (white to move)

1rr5/p4q1k/3Q4/8/4p1R1/2p5/PPP1B2P/1K6 w - -

After move 37... Kh7 (white to move)

1rr5/p4q1k/3Q4/8/4p1R1/2p5/PPP1B2P/1K6 w - -


So your point is ... ?


Regards, Sidney

Mondo wrote:
Seymore Butts wrote:
For more info read the following:

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

BS IMHO


"Seymore Butts" wrote in message
...

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





Yes it was a draw by three fold repetition. The final decision to
allow the win by Shredder despite the bug that allowed the repetition,
is completely wrong. The game should have been drawn. The organizers are
showing some dubious ethics, by allowing human intervention to decide a
silicon match.
If your program is buggy then you should suffer the consequences of
your faulty programming.

That is a point. If you look at my first WCCC event in Toronto in 1977,
I suffered from just such a bug. At the time I used the English Descriptive
notation for moves (B-QB4 for example). We were using a remote computer
and everytime the TD (David Levy at the time) said something on the
microphone, my modem disconnected (It was accoustic way back then). I
was playing Belle (Ken Thompson) and on one occasion when we got reconnected,
I set a flag wrong that confused my program (blitz) about which side was
king-side and which was queen-side. At some point we had an obvious
winning move (B-qb4) but the program said B-kb4, losing the bishop to an
immediate pin (we had our king on the kb file, belle played R-kb1 pinning
the bishop, our only move was p-kn3 defending the bishop, he played p-kn4
attacking the bishop and winning it and the game.) We called David over,
as after every move we displayed the chess board as well as the move and
PV we wanted to play. The chess board clearly showed the _right_ move,
but the "my move is B-kb4" was obviously wrong. David made us play B-kb4
and we lost the game. I didn't object at all. The program should have
known which was the K side and which was the Q-side, but instead, for this
set-up command, I had to enter it and I got it wrong.

Compare that decision (the displayed move is the move you have to use)
in 1977 with the 2003 decision (the displayed draw claim is rejected
because the engine didn't see it.)

consistency is what is missing. In large quantities.

Bugs happen. And you have to either test, or bear the consequences. I
haven't had such bugs in CC games in years, because I play so much on ICC
testing and debugging, that when I get to a tournament, such stuff simply
doesn't happen. Shredder _could_ have been tested the same way and the
bug would have shown up somewhere in a thousand games. But it wasn't
tested, and even though it was probably the best program there, best doesn't
count, "winning" does, in a tournament...

--
Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D. Computer and Information Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 136A Campbell Hall
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170