mjlef wrote: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.
Ok, in this case the repetition of the first game is correct in my opinon.
There is no question: it is the fault of the TCEC operator, and therefore it is clear (regardless if this special-case rule is written down in a tcec rule or not) that the game must be repeated.
whereagles wrote: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.
Now what if the improperly configured program had not lost but won? No harm done, no need to "allow a loss to stand, for a program that was improperly configured at startup", so no replay?
(To repeat the obvious: that would be really bad. It means the slightly handicapped program gets two shots and the other program is disadvantaged. Note that the error was made by the operator, not by the author of the other prorgam.)
In principle I agree that in the absence of clear rules the "least bad" choice should be made. If the handicap was severe (like the engine being configured with 1 thread instead of 20), the game had little meaning and should be replayed. If the handicap was non-severe, it may suffice to apologise to the disadvantaged side (independent of the outcome of the game) and not replay it (and of course fix it for the many games still to be played).
I suppose I follow your arguement now, all you are saying is that the rules should be clear and unbiased. Which is to say, if program A was misconfigured, and it was noted that it was misconfigured, either replay the game irrespective of the result or don't replay THAT game no matter what.
Your arguement being if we do not do that, the mis-configured engine has an opportunity that _all_ other programs are not offered (the 2nd shot at the game).
That sounds fair to me. And I would advocate having that rule clearly there, so that there is no confusion from here on.
PS: I know I stated exactly what you did, but I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.
Raptor wrote:I suppose I follow your arguement now, all you are saying is that the rules should be clear and unbiased. Which is to say, if program A was misconfigured, and it was noted that it was misconfigured, either replay the game irrespective of the result or don't replay THAT game no matter what.
Your arguement being if we do not do that, the mis-configured engine has an opportunity that _all_ other programs are not offered (the 2nd shot at the game).
That sounds fair to me. And I would advocate having that rule clearly there, so that there is no confusion from here on.
PS: I know I stated exactly what you did, but I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.
Exactly.
The only problem with such a rule is that I'm not sure how to phrase it. As was also already discussed, what to do in case the mistake is detected only much later?
In the end, this should be a very rare thing to happen. There are surely other things that could go wrong and are not covered by the rules and that we now could not think of even if we tried. But Murphy's law guarantees they will happen at some point.
In such cases it might be better to continue with the other games for the moment and take one or two days to consult with the participants and decide which solution is fairest to both sides (and to the other participants). Or one could let the TD decide and set up an appeals committee.
Of course this is all just a very insignificant quibble. But so is chess in general
There is extremely an easy way to make things right and if organisers accept that we can know that they are fair.
In return game Komodo vs Houdini, two games should be played no matter what and only result of the second game should be taken into consideration. And Robert should be allowed to select Houdini settings (which differ from the settings he already sent for the whole stage) for the first (irrelevant) game.
If we assume that Mark would not complain if Komodo was not loosing the game (which is more than reasonable to assume), then we can have another (even more fair) scenario. One Houdini parameter (contempt) is slightly changed from the value Robert requested, game is played and Robert has right to request a game to be replayed with correct parameter if he wants before the game has ended, or he can stay silent and the game result is registered as is!
Milos wrote:
In return game Komodo vs Houdini, two games should be played no matter what and only result of the second game should be taken into consideration. And Robert should be allowed to select Houdini settings (which differ from the settings he already sent for the whole stage) for the first (irrelevant) game.
You do realise that this is simply a collossal waste of time, right?
If we assume that Mark would not complain if Komodo was not loosing the game (which is more than reasonable to assume), then we can have another (even more fair) scenario.
Care to elaborate why that is "reasonable"? If you're saying he might have missed that the settings were wrong in that case, fair enough (no real reason to think so though). However, if you're suggesting a deliberate sabotage... well, I'd want that scenario backed up. The fact that you consider it a "reasonable" assumption is not enough, and probably says more about you than Mark.
Evert wrote:You do realise that this is simply a collossal waste of time, right?
Four hours is a colossal waste of time??? Wow, you really like to use a hyperbole in your writings...
Care to elaborate why that is "reasonable"? If you're saying he might have missed that the settings were wrong in that case, fair enough (no real reason to think so though). However, if you're suggesting a deliberate sabotage... well, I'd want that scenario backed up. The fact that you consider it a "reasonable" assumption is not enough, and probably says more about you than Mark.
I am saying he might have "missed" (not missed) the settings were wrong in case Komodo was winning the game.
I assume that ppl in general are never fully honest or saints, and most of the time behave just in their own interest.
I also firmly believe that ppl believing otherwise are either naive or simply dishonest and hypocritical.
Evert wrote:You do realise that this is simply a collossal waste of time, right?
Four hours is a colossal waste of time??? Wow, you really like to use a hyperbole in your writings...
Care to elaborate why that is "reasonable"? If you're saying he might have missed that the settings were wrong in that case, fair enough (no real reason to think so though). However, if you're suggesting a deliberate sabotage... well, I'd want that scenario backed up. The fact that you consider it a "reasonable" assumption is not enough, and probably says more about you than Mark.
I am saying he might have "missed" (not missed) the settings were wrong in case Komodo was winning the game.
I assume that ppl in general are never fully honest or saints, and most of the time behave just in their own interest.
I also firmly believe that ppl believing otherwise are either naive or simply dishonest and hypocritical.
I think you should give up on this line of reasoning. The only _facts_ we know are (a) Komodo was started with settings contrary to what Mark had requested; (b) the game was set to be replayed as a consequence of that.
Getting into the speculation about "did he know and wait until he was sure he was losing before pointing out the mistake" or "would have have not mentioned it if Komodo had won?" are pure speculation that can never be resolved with facts.
So, go with the facts, stop with the speculation, and let's see what happens in the event. A mistake was made, it was corrected, and the event moves on.
