draw against the rules in the WCCC

[bob]

Nice to not have to deal with this nonsense in the CCT events.

Can't operators offer each other a draw on ICC then?

Nope. Nor can you use a "move now" key or any other sort of interference.

[hgm]

Wht interface re you using, then? When I type 'draw' in the ICC interaction window, Board (in zippy mode) sends it dutifully to ICC, and the ICS is never to know that it was me that typed it, rather than the engine. I have even done that occasionally during CCT.

The 'move now' menu does not seem to be grayed out in zippy play. Even if it were, it would be triial for me to make an XBoard verson that did not do it, and relay the command to the engine. I never used it, as my engines do not support it, but that is another matter.

[swami]

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid156834

I think that it could be better if the organizers could tell the player that they do not accept the draw and the players need to continue.

The game is between computers and not between humans and the joker operator has no right to offer a draw for Joker.

Uri

If the engine claimed a draw, the operator can give the info that the engine offers draw.

However, the Operator cannot act on his whim to offer a draw even when the engine gives equal score without claiming a draw.

Oh yes he can. And it has happened in the past. Regardless of what the rules say...

When did it happen? Are you talking about Jonny-Shredder, Graz 2003? I forgot the details on what happened there. I thought Jonny's author was altruistic to concede the point away when it was not exactly right for him to do it as per the rules.

[bob]

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid156834

I think that it could be better if the organizers could tell the player that they do not accept the draw and the players need to continue.

The game is between computers and not between humans and the joker operator has no right to offer a draw for Joker.

Uri

If the engine claimed a draw, the operator can give the info that the engine offers draw.

However, the Operator cannot act on his whim to offer a draw even when the engine gives equal score without claiming a draw.

Oh yes he can. And it has happened in the past. Regardless of what the rules say...

When did it happen? Are you talking about Jonny-Shredder, Graz 2003? I forgot the details on what happened there. I thought Jonny's author was altruistic to concede the point away when it was not exactly right for him to do it as per the rules.

Shredder had a bug. By interfering with the final result, he interfered with the final winner result as well, which should not have been allowed to happen. There have been a couple of other fishy draw issues at WCCC events. I don't remember them as they did not have as far-reaching an effect as the Jonny case did.

[bob]

Wht interface re you using, then? When I type 'draw' in the ICC interaction window, Board (in zippy mode) sends it dutifully to ICC, and the ICS is never to know that it was me that typed it, rather than the engine. I have even done that occasionally during CCT.

The 'move now' menu does not seem to be grayed out in zippy play. Even if it were, it would be triial for me to make an XBoard verson that did not do it, and relay the command to the engine. I never used it, as my engines do not support it, but that is another matter.

I said "you are not allowed to use them." There is no way to _prevent_ you from doing so even though it is simply wrong and against the rules. The server can't control what goes on between the GUI, the engine and the operator. Several have written their own interfaces in fact, which would make it even more impossible to prevent.

[hgm]

So how is this better than WCCC / ICGA tournaments then? There you are also not _allowed_ to do these things. And there actually _is_ a way to prevent / enforce them. It is just that they don't bother to do that unless other participants start protesting.

Your remark that one "does not have to deal with this nonsense in CCT events" is really very misguided. The problem is infinitely worse there, and can in fact only be solved by dropping the 'no-human-intervention' rule altogether.

[hgm]

Showing a draw score is not the same as claiming a draw, is it? When an engine claims a draw it should not be possible for it to play on.

Just like showing a score of -327.25 is not the same as resigning. It just means that you have seen that the opponent can mate you in so and so many moves. In no way it implies that you think the opponent has seen it too.

[hgm]

I am not sure it implies anything. He might have explained it because he was under the impresion that he, as operator, could have claimed the draw for the engine.

This is not such an unreasonable thought: if you are operating in a game between two engines that do not claim while they are repeating, would you really expect them to go on for a few thousand moves?

[bob]

So how is this better than WCCC / ICGA tournaments then? There you are also not _allowed_ to do these things. And there actually _is_ a way to prevent / enforce them. It is just that they don't bother to do that unless other participants start protesting.

Your remark that one "does not have to deal with this nonsense in CCT events" is really very misguided. The problem is infinitely worse there, and can in fact only be solved by dropping the 'no-human-intervention' rule altogether.

A couple of points.

(1) it is physically impossible to prevent human interference. You could try putting every computer inside a Faraday cage to prevent RF signals from getting in. You could make every computer run from a UPS to make sure no signals are going in over the power. You could enclose them completely to make sure no IR type signals are going in. And once you protect the network completely as well, you now have a very expensive tournament that is held at a single location, no operators inside the "cage" etc. Not doable.

(2) in light of (1), if a human wants to cheat, he is going to cheat, and the only solution is to not hold the event.

(3) The problem is not "infinitely worse" on CCT type events as opposed to ICGA events. You can cheat in either venue and be undetectable. You have to type moves in, you can vary your spacing of time between characters to pass information to the program. If you use xboard, you can use the mouse movement to pass in more than just the piece being moved and where it moves to. I have seen people lie about the clock time remaining to cause their program to think longer than normal. Etc.

By getting the human hands out of the equation, we make it harder for a human to interfere, and by requiring real-time kibitzes, we make it even harder since the program's actions have to match the real-time output to avoid suspicion. I have attended a couple of dozen in-person type events, both ACM and WCCC tournaments. I _infinitely_ prefer the automated approach used in CCT events. And since these events are attracting far more participation, the events are more fun as well.

[bob]

I am not sure it implies anything. He might have explained it because he was under the impresion that he, as operator, could have claimed the draw for the engine.

This is not such an unreasonable thought: if you are operating in a game between two engines that do not claim while they are repeating, would you really expect them to go on for a few thousand moves?

That is not what happened. Shredder was seeing mate scores, but had a parallel search bug that made it miss some draws by repetition. It played a move that led to a 3-fold repetition, and the program Jonny popped up a window that claimed a draw. The operator refused to claim the draw, the TD allowed that to happen, and the game continued until Shredder won.

The human overruled the draw claim by the program's pop-up window, which is clearly "interference by the operator". Not the first such decision made by Jaap, and it also won't be the last...