2007 World Computer Rapid Chess Championships: Final Results

[Uri Blass]

The lesson I have learned here is after a tournament whatever the result just to keep quiet like all the other programers do.

Attempting to give some insight as to what was actually happening at the time is a waste of time - in future when we score 12/14 I will keep quiet.

Hi Harvey,
Congrats on the wonderful performance of Hiarcs. I think it is one of the few engines that has been striving hard to keep up with Rybka and is being successful.
And thanks for sharing your insights. It is always fascinating to know what the operators are thinking.
To others, maybe in future, it is a good idea to have the rules clearly laid out before the tournament- maybe no user intervention at all - or allow operators to accept/ reject draws and modify the contempt factor etc.
Let there be no gray areas. I think before modifying the contempt factor, the TD should have been approached- who would have most likely rejected the proposal. Good thing is, it did not alter the final outcome.
A well deserved second place for Hiarcs.
Cheers,

It is not correct.
It did alter the final outcome.

Alaric got the 6th place and with draw against hiarcs it could get worse place.

I also think that the fact that hiarcs lost changed the outcome for hiarcs and now the hiarcs team cannot claim that hiarcs is the only program that did not lose a single game in the tournament when in case of a draw against alaric they could say in their advertisement that hiarcs is the only program that did not lose a game in the rapid computer world championip.

Uri

[Rolf]

It seems false to accuse hgm for defending simple logic and rational thinking. I have four points to make in this debate.

HIARCS operator didnt misinterprete any rules, he simply played with violating the rules of computerchess. The rule in special that DURING a game nothing should be changed, is a well known forbiding sign at least since the days in 1997 when we discussed the different issues of the show event between Kasparov and DEEP BLUE 2. IMO Kasparov saw someone else than the computer deciding over the output in one or two cases.

A particularly weak defense by the operator here was to mention that also ZAPPA and RYBKA had violated the rules because they either a) came too late and b) didnt allow kibitzing. However that is irrational logic because that didnt consist an advantage for the _single_ games.

A minor oversight in the debate was to mention that Harvey couldnt be accused of cheating because how could he if he now reported here exactly what he had done during the game. Here it is obviously confused what someone thought about his own behavior and what that meant from an objective perspective. It doesnt mean the same IMO.

Last but not least I strongly support Uri who stated that also OTHER progs were disadvantaged by the unsuccessful gamble in a probably drawn position of HIARCS. And I object that someone might conclude from all this that one shouldnt talk in public after such events at all. This wouldnt have worked in our case because it then should have been explained why HIARCS, otherwise a very strong prog, suddenly should follow a line where it lost forcedly a whole pawn... That would remind us directly of 1997 again.

[Uri Blass]

The word 'cheated' was mentioned by not the words cheater and liar and there is a difference.

The poster of the words 'cheated'(frank) was also not aggresive and he said that it is not the first time when something like that happens.

The fact that he wrote 'cheated' and not cheated also suggest that he did not feel comfortable with the idea of calling harvey with the word cheater.

Here are his words again:

"Not the first time that an operator in one of these events got so involved with his charge that he took over and 'cheated' (assuming it was not allowed by the rules), either knowingly or through plain enthusiasm."

Uri

[Graham Banks]

A minor oversight in the debate was to mention that Harvey couldnt be accused of cheating because how could he if he now reported here exactly what he had done during the game. Here it is obviously confused what someone thought about his own behavior and what that meant from an objective perspective. It doesnt mean the same IMO.

Exactly, except I'd say it's a major oversight.
If Harvey had knowingly cheated, he wouldn't be dumb enough to openly post about it.

[Rolf]

A minor oversight in the debate was to mention that Harvey couldnt be accused of cheating because how could he if he now reported here exactly what he had done during the game. Here it is obviously confused what someone thought about his own behavior and what that meant from an objective perspective. It doesnt mean the same IMO.

Exactly, except I'd say it's a major oversight.
If Harvey had knowingly cheated, he wouldn't be dumb enough to openly post about it.

We should drop this about 'cheating' or even 'knowingly cheating' and what this would mean for a potential posting about certain details of operating HIARCS. All what we are doing is discussing what a certain behavior could mean a) during the game and b) after the tournament. Viewed from the outside and not related to a potential guilt or such.

I support more automatic in the operating procedures without human interventions as possible.

[VP]

It is not correct.
It did alter the final outcome.
Uri

Uri, you may be right.
BTW, instead of a convention, do you not think that it would help to have all the rules in Black and White?
Even if Harvey did it knowingly, it was against the convention, and not against the rules. Anyway, had it been against the rules, then the TD would have forced Hiarcs to forfeit and concede the game.
So, how is the result altered?

[Uri Blass]

It is not correct.
It did alter the final outcome.
Uri

Uri, you may be right.
BTW, instead of a convention, do you not think that it would help to have all the rules in Black and White?
Even if Harvey did it knowingly, it was against the convention, and not against the rules. Anyway, had it been against the rules, then the TD would have forced Hiarcs to forfeit and concede the game.
So, how is the result altered?

My point is that the fact that it was possible to change the setting during the game changed the result.

In case that no human involvement was possible during the game hiarcs could probably draw the game.

Uri

[hgm]

Note that it doesn't upset me so much what Harvey did, as that I am shocked by the opinion held by some here that authors of weaker programs should not be allowed to criticise or object to rule violations by stronger programs.

Like I would not be allowed to testify in a murder trial where I saw the suspect gun down someone because I am not a crack marksman myself.

This really makes no sense at all...

[frankp]

Note that it doesn't upset me so much what Harvey did, as that I am shocked by the opinion held by some here that authors of weaker programs should not be allowed to criticise or object to rule violations by stronger programs.

Like I would not be allowed to testify in a murder trial where I saw the suspect gun down someone because I am not a crack marksman myself.

This really makes no sense at all...

You (rather than your argument) will always get flamed. [edited]
It is always interesting to note that it is rarely the programmers.
And any objectivity about the facts and what was actually said quickly gets lost in the 'virility contest' that develop between pairs of posters.
Not unique to chess - shoot the messenger, attack the individual, ignore the substance of any comments, change the basis of the argument, setup a smoke screen, sophism, FUD ...... There are numerous example, and after the next such event I predict that there will probably be another. One solution is to have only automatic operation. I think when we are discussing not appreciating the role of 'TOP operators' there is a message there.

'Pinch of salt' time.

BTW for those prone to high blood pressure, this is not a comment on what Harvey may or may not have done or this particular event.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Note that it doesn't upset me so much what Harvey did, as that I am shocked by the opinion held by some here that authors of weaker programs should not be allowed to criticise or object to rule violations by stronger programs.

Like I would not be allowed to testify in a murder trial where I saw the suspect gun down someone because I am not a crack marksman myself.

This really makes no sense at all...

Rules are valided for everyone. If it wouldn't be allowed to say engine X violation rule Y we don't need rules, because everybody could do what he wants.
I'm really shocked by your statement. I have really no idea what's up with you.

Best,
Daniel