CCT 11: Games so far...

[Nick C]

Point is that the FIDE rules, by which we are playing, specify that a game is finished after you resign.

Does anyone actually know what the FIDE rule is if a player accidentally knocks over his King and then does not follow up the "resignation" with a verbal commitment?

I guess that is analogous to today's situation.

[Peter Skinner]

I think Peter is an excellent and fair TD

And with a lot of experience too.
Such a situation as occurred puts a TD in a no win situation (excuse the pun). He'd have been criticised no matter what decision was made.

It was a year or two ago when Junior had a problem resuming a game during the CCT and I allowed it to restart the game with I believe Hiarcs. I took a roasting for that because the interface was considered part of the engine. Ok.. I understand that. That was my fault.

Today, Rybka's interface resigned when they went to disconnect because they lost contact with the cluster. There _are_ rules in place to handle disconnections in that you are allowed two of them before you lose the game because of it.

Due to the resignation, the game was _over_. You can't continue the game on ICC because the server has logged it as being completed.

I actually received two emails from one person first accusing me of purposely trying to screw over Rybka, then the second implying that I was trying to allow Telepath to finish higher than it should.

In round 5, Scorpio had a mating score against who else, but Telepath. It froze, failing to mate and flagged on time. So due to Scorpio flagging and Telepath not having any mating material, the game was set 1/2-1/2 by the server:

[Event "CCT 11"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2009.03.21"]
[Round "5"]
[White "dshawul"]
[Black "Telepath"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ICCResult "White ran out of time and Black has no material to mate"]
[WhiteElo "1978"]
[BlackElo "2384"]
[Opening "QGD Slav: Dutch variation"]
[ECO "D18"]
[NIC "SL.05"]
[Time "15:00:47"]
[TimeControl "3000+3"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8.
O-O Nbd7 9. Qe2 Bg6 10. e4 O-O 11. Bd3 h6 12. Bf4 Re8 13. Rfc1 Bh5 14. e5
Nd5 15. Nxd5 cxd5 16. Qe3 Nf8 17. Bb5 Nd7 18. Rc2 a6 19. Bd3 Qb6 20. Bxh6
Bxf3 21. a5 Qa7 22. gxf3 Rec8 23. Rxc8+ Rxc8 24. Kh1 Kf8 25. Qf4 b5 26. axb6
Nxb6 27. Rxa6 Qb7 28. Bg5 Ke8 29. Qg4 Kd7 30. Bb5+ Kc7 31. Ra1 Kb8 32. Ba6
Qa7 33. Qh3 Nc4 34. Qf1 Qxd4 35. Bxc8 Kxc8 36. b3 Qxe5 37. f4 Qc3 38. bxc4
Qf3+ 39. Qg2 Qc3 40. Rd1 Qxc4 41. f5 Qe2 42. Rc1+ Kd7 43. Qg3 Ba5 44. Qb3
Qe4+ 45. f3 Qb4 46. fxe6+ fxe6 47. Qc2 Qc4 48. Qg6 Qxc1+ 49. Bxc1 Bc3 50.
Ba3 d4 51. Qf7+ Kc6 52. Qxe6+ Kb7 53. Bc5 Bd2 54. Qd7+ Ka6 55. Qc6+ Ka5 56.
Qb6+ Ka4 57. Qa6+ Kb3 58. Qd3+ Bc3 59. Bxd4 Ka4 60. Bxc3 Kb3 61. Be5+ Kb4
62. Qb1+ Kc5 63. Bxg7 Kc6 64. Bf8 Kc7 65. Kg2 Kc6 66. Qb4 Kc7 67. Kg3 Kc6
68. Qa4+ Kc7 {White ran out of time and Black has no material to mate}
1/2-1/2

So apparently not only am I trying to ruin Rybka's chances of winning the event, I am also helping Telepath get a higher score (Telepath was Rybka's first round opponent when the interface resigned by accident). I am waiting for the email stating that I fY%)&d over Diep because it failed to show up for 2 rounds and lost because of it, or that I prevented Weid and Mediocre from participating because they didn't show up.

Since I had nothing else to do this weekend, I thought I would run a little chess tournament and screw over people...

[Rolf]

I foresee, that other programmers after Fritz, Hiarcs, Junior etc will abstain from such allegedly automatical events that then still are busted by human interests.

Peter, isnt it interesting that some told you via email that they had no time this weekend but then have time enough to discuss the smallest details? Do you see the contradiction too?

BTW I for one see it as a very fair present that Rybka with its superiority spent a full point so that the tension gets even higher. Very interesting thread IMO.

[glorfindel]

Does anyone actually know what the FIDE rule is if a player accidentally knocks over his King and then does not follow up the "resignation" with a verbal commitment?

This is easy. I have recently followed a seminar for chess referees.

The resignation is only valid when you have signed the scoresheet. You may declare "I resign", you may shake hands with the opponent, but unless you have signed, you can keep playing.

[Nick C]

Does anyone actually know what the FIDE rule is if a player accidentally knocks over his King and then does not follow up the "resignation" with a verbal commitment?

This is easy. I have recently followed a seminar for chess referees.

The resignation is only valid when you have signed the scoresheet. You may declare "I resign", you may shake hands with the opponent, but unless you have signed, you can keep playing.

Thanks Christos I really had no idea. This says to me that "intention" plays a big part in determining whether or not you have actually resigned. I would say to the previous poster (H.G.M) that I have no problem with the TD's decision, but your comment about intent not being applicable in this case is not correct. If we were really playing under FIDE rules could I lodge a protest? Don't worry I won't, but please don't quote FIDE rules at me as they clearly defeat your own argument.

[michiguel]

Rybka _resigned_. There was no way to resume the game. If it just crashed or disconnected, it could have.

So now some unfortunate much weaker engines get penalized by having to face Rybka ?

Matthias.

That is not a penalty, it is a pleasure, an honour, and an opportunity to play stronger opponents.

Miguel

[glorfindel]

Thanks Christos I really had no idea. This says to me that "intention" plays a big part in determining whether or not you have actually resigned. I would say to the previous poster (H.G.M) that I have no problem with the TD's decision, but your comment about intent not being applicable in this case is not correct. If we were really playing under FIDE rules could I lodge a protest? Don't worry I won't, but please don't quote FIDE rules at me as they clearly defeat your own argument.

Yes, I guess intention does play a part. It was surprising to find out that one can say I resign, and he can change his mind later.

However, after the signing of the scoresheets (which, I must add, should take place in the presence of the arbiter) the outcome is final and you usually don't have many chances if you make a protest to have the result changed - unless something really extraordinary has happened. The situation at the board is not taken into consideration.

In this case, the arbiter is obviously the ICC and he is always present. Perhaps by clicking the top right X you unintentionally declared you were resigning. But I think that by "hitting enter" you signed the scoresheet.

[michiguel]

Point is that the FIDE rules, by which we are playing, specify that a game is finished after you resign.

Does anyone actually know what the FIDE rule is if a player accidentally knocks over his King and then does not follow up the "resignation" with a verbal commitment?

I guess that is analogous to today's situation.

No, it is not analogous. Knocking a king is not a sign of resigning,

It you want an analogy, this is like in correspondence chess you resign, put a stamp in the envelope, and mail it. The fact that in electronic competitions it is easier to do, it does not mean is less valid.

I understand your frustration and because it was an honest mistake, but really, this does not deserve much analysis.

Miguel

[Nick C]

But I think that by "hitting enter" you signed the scoresheet.

Well if that was the case then intention really does have nothing to do with it as I didn't even read what I hit enter on. But yet you opened your reply to me by saying that intention does matter

Yes, I guess intention does play a part

so I'm confused, do you think that intention matters or not?

Why would I intend to resign in a won position? I would hope that anyone reasonable would guess that it was not intended.

[Graham Banks]

But I think that by "hitting enter" you signed the scoresheet.

Well if that was the case then intention really does have nothing to do with it as I didn't even read what I hit enter on. But yet you opened your reply to me by saying that intention does matter

Yes, I guess intention does play a part

so I'm confused, do you think that intention matters or not?

Why would I intend to resign in a won position? I would hope that anyone reasonable would guess that it was not intended.

Of course it was not intended, but Peter would have come under fire no matter how he ruled on it.