TCEC stage 3 , New Houdini starts with a bang

[bob]

There is one overriding question here. What is the purpose of playing the games? (a) to see if the human operators can set things up correctly? or (b) to see which program wins the game, using optimal settings? I've always gone for (b). And, in fact, ICGA tournament rules require this. If a game is re-started, with wrong settings, it gets backed up to the last correct point and resumed. If the wrong move is entered, the game backs up to the last correct move and continues. The goal has always been to see which program plays better at that particular instant in time, rather than whether or not an operator makes a simple configuration error.

Are you sure that also applies to wrong settings at ICGA tournaments?

For example, an operator might have inadvertently configured the engine to use too little time. Halfway the game he discovers his error. Is the game now restarted from the point where the mistake was made (i.e. from move 1)?

It seems to me that would allow for too much abuse. I guess there must be some restrictions on the type of mistake that can be corrected.

(Of course in TCEC these is no such operator involvement, so things are normally much simpler.)

It is more difficult at an ICGA event because in general the programmer is the one running the engine. But even in that case, if something is broken, the game does back up to that point, the mistake is corrected, and the game resumes.

I have only seen one example to the contrary. In the 1983 WCCC event, we were playing BCP (Don Beal's program). He set the time control to blitz, and since he was the programmer, David (Levy) did not allow him to change the settings back later (the thinking was that he had made several very fast moves, and then using all that saved time might produce an advantage...

Unless the rules specifically state something else, I would tend to allow to change the settings back later (if there is no real doubt that the current setting was never intended), but I would not allow the game to be backed up "to the last correct point". Because that would give the side making the error the option to see how it goes, and if doesn't go well, to have another try.

I might be more lenient if the incorrect setting evidently led to hopeless play.

For me, I prefer "let the programs decide the outcome". I played in the 1985 ACM event in Denver. We played Zarkov running on an overclocked HP chip running in the HP lab. We were in an interesting KR + pawns ending that most agreed we should win, but there was lots of discussion about whether a program could actually win the ending or not. John ran into some sort of issue where his program crashed repeatedly. Rather than claiming a win on time, we elected to let him have enough time to correct the problem (don't remember whether he moved to a different machine or what, he would have to answer that), so that we could see what happened. Turns out we were able to win it because of the "if we must play a move that leads to a draw, play the one that draws as far away as possible from the root..."

So my penchant is pretty clear, and others have done the same as well. Of course, that was back in the days of no clones, no ethically-challenged opponents...

In my view, if the rules were clear and left no choice to the participants, they should have been followed. (But maybe the rules only states you were entitled to claim the point. If you then don't claim it, then that's fine of course.)

Some time ago I came across an old thread about a similar incident (but I don't think it was this 1985 incident). In that case the side that should have been awarded the point according to the clear rules requested the game to be continued. The request was allowed and the "gracious" side ended up losing the point (or maybe half a point).

In that thread, Bruce Moreland (if I am not mistaken) very convincingly argued why this was wrong. If the rules are clear, they should just be followed. Otherwise you put people under pressure because nobody wants to become known as ethically challenged. Exercising your right (in a game context) is no sign of an ethical weakness, but that is difficult to explain when others are trying to put you in a bad light. The best way to avoid such situations is for the TD to enforce the rules.

When the rules are silent, things become more difficult.

There I agree 100%. I'd prefer NO settings be altered in any way, unless they are altered by the programmer when the version is compiled, or by the program when / if it is informed of who it is playing.

Then this never happens.

[Krgp]

Speaking about 'real' tournaments (Human tournaments) ... chances of something going wrong are much more than engine tournaments.

One thing everyone agrees that no rule can cater to every situation. As RDM has been repeatedly and rightly pointing out that the decision was taken claiming that 'Rules are Rules' ... when there is no such rule.

In human tournaments, there are clear rules (FIDE rules) catering to much vast and broader situations. Arbiter takes a decision ... and if someone is aggrieved, an appeal is filed with the 'appeals committee' which is elected/formed from the 'participating players' before start of the tmt.

A similar setup can be done in engine tournaments. In this case Mark pointed out, arbiter (Anton) took decision ... now RH or any participant could have filed appeal with appeals committee .... and whatever decision appeals committee would have taken would have resolved dispute ... a much better compromise than the present one ...

[bob]

Speaking about 'real' tournaments (Human tournaments) ... chances of something going wrong are much more than engine tournaments.

One thing everyone agrees that no rule can cater to every situation. As RDM has been repeatedly and rightly pointing out that the decision was taken claiming that 'Rules are Rules' ... when there is no such rule.

In human tournaments, there are clear rules (FIDE rules) catering to much vast and broader situations. Arbiter takes a decision ... and if someone is aggrieved, an appeal is filed with the 'appeals committee' which is elected/formed from the 'participating players' before start of the tmt.

A similar setup can be done in engine tournaments. In this case Mark pointed out, arbiter (Anton) took decision ... now RH or any participant could have filed appeal with appeals committee .... and whatever decision appeals committee would have taken would have resolved dispute ... a much better compromise than the present one ...

What would happen in a tournament if one of the two clocks was set wrong at the start of a game and nobody noticed until it was discovered that the time used is nowhere near what the real time should be? IE normally the clocks are set to 4pm for a 2 hour time control. Suppose one was set to 3pm and no one noticed? It would be obvious, if the round started at 1pm, and at 2pm player one has over 2 hours left on his clock.

Or, a situation I faced as a TD many years ago, a clock was defective and one side was running EXTREMELY slow. Do you just say "ok, so what?" That affects the game output. If they write down the move times, then one can get a new clock and figure out where they should be set, letting the game continue. But without move times?

Sometimes logic has to prevail, and in a computer vs computer event where the authors are not running the games, they are clearly being reasonable when they expect that settings are what they requested / expected...

It was a human mistake, not made by either of the two authors, so a replay seems to be the only reasonable remedy.

[bob]

This sort of incident is embarassing and must be avoided.

Still, the solution is sensible.

Nobody is perfect.

I'd have made exactly the same decision if I did this in one of my tournaments.

There are occasions where any possible choice is bad. So it becomes a matter of taking the "least bad" choice. You could allow a loss to stand, for a program that was improperly configured at startup, which is certainly a bad result. Or you could replay the game, throwing out the original result, which is also a bad result. IMHO the "least bad" result was to replay the game so at least the result matches the intent, computer vs computer without human error influencing the result in any way, large or small.

[mjlef]

Yes, we told the TD what settings to use.

Komodo 10.1 defaults to Contempt = 10 and Dynamism = 115. So only Contempt needed to be manually sent.

[Laskos]

This sort of incident is embarassing and must be avoided.

Still, the solution is sensible.

Nobody is perfect.

I'd have made exactly the same decision if I did this in one of my tournaments.

There are occasions where any possible choice is bad. So it becomes a matter of taking the "least bad" choice. You could allow a loss to stand, for a program that was improperly configured at startup, which is certainly a bad result. Or you could replay the game, throwing out the original result, which is also a bad result. IMHO the "least bad" result was to replay the game so at least the result matches the intent, computer vs computer without human error influencing the result in any way, large or small.

That's the problem, that the "least bad" was not re-playing the game, at least from quantifiable assessment of distortion.

[Ralf Müller]

But the replay decision was made during the game and not afterwards. So your distortion argument isn't valid.

[Uri Blass]

This sort of incident is embarassing and must be avoided.

Still, the solution is sensible.

Nobody is perfect.

I'd have made exactly the same decision if I did this in one of my tournaments.

There are occasions where any possible choice is bad. So it becomes a matter of taking the "least bad" choice. You could allow a loss to stand, for a program that was improperly configured at startup, which is certainly a bad result. Or you could replay the game, throwing out the original result, which is also a bad result. IMHO the "least bad" result was to replay the game so at least the result matches the intent, computer vs computer without human error influencing the result in any way, large or small.

That's the problem, that the "least bad" was not re-playing the game, at least from quantifiable assessment of distortion.

There is no agreement about the "least bad".
I think replaying the game regardless of the result is the "least bad".

I see no distortion from replaying the game.

Of course there is distortion if replaying the game is dependent on the result or dependent on the expected result but I do not see a reason to assume that it is the situation(I think that it is better to have clearer rules in the future so people will not have a basis to claim that replaying the game is maybe a function of the result).

[Uri Blass]

But the replay decision was made during the game and not afterwards. So your distortion argument isn't valid.

This is not enough to refute the theory about distortion because based on my understanding the replay decision happened when the position was a clear win for houdini.

Note that I do not claim that there was a distortion but only that it is not possible to refute the theory.

[Daniel Anulliero]

And at the very end , I'm very happy the monthly hgm's tournament exist, here is the real fun , no " head crash " kind guys etc ... Thanks Harm !
Dany

Can you give a link to the hgm tournament. I admire Harm not only as an extremely able programmer but as a kind and helpful person as well.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60878