Guetti wrote:You can't exclude some teams and others not for breaking the rules. Crafty (and Rybka) broke rule 7. that is clearly stated on the ACCA website. But it's a bit harsh to exclude somebody for not kibitzing. You could say breaking rule 6 is more objectionable than breaking rule 7., but rules are rules.
I don't agree.
Actually, I think that the fact that some engines systematically and consistetly refuse to implement Kibitz, shows a blatant disregard for the rules that is far, far worse than what the HIARCS team did. They obviously have no intention at all to comply with the rules. While I agree that the rules were not so clearly spelled out, the requirement to Kibitz was one of the rules that was widely advertized from the beginneing. (It would not hurt, for the benefit of novices, to distribute a mail with rules, plus a short overview of how to operate ICC during such a tournament. This "tell pear games" business was far from obvious.)
Not that I want to make a clear distinction here between programs that did not Kibitz because they merely forgot to switch it on, or directed the output to an unusual place, and those that simply did not implement it at all. If someone makes a mistake, it is no reason to forfeit a game. The TD can simply notify the operator of his mistake, and order him to switch the Kibitz on. If there are compelling technical reasons whythis cannot be done during a game, at least the offending side should be required to have proper parameter settings for the next game. But if not, there no longer is an excuse. So after the first warning, all following games should be forfeited on the bases of refusing to kibitz!
If we don't want that, the requirement to Kibitz should be immediately removed from the rules. As having rules that can be broken with impunity makes a joke of the tournament!
IMO there are 3 different "breaking of the rules" version here.
1) Temporarely breaking ( I forgot to switch on ...)
2) Unintended breaking ( I thought I was allowed to switch ...)
3) Intended breaking ( I'll decide myself if I switch on/off ... )
and "punishment" should be weighted accordingly
1) OK, try to member next time.
2) Don't do this next time.
3) There is no next time.
(After breaking a rule number you move to ruleBreakingNumber++)
hgm wrote:I don't agree.
Actually, I think that the fact that some engines systematically and consistetly refuse to implement Kibitz, shows a blatant disregard for the rules that is far, far worse than what the HIARCS team did.
We read that the fiddling during and onto a running chessgame is just cheating (Hyatt), and now something, not according to the 'rules', however which has _no_ impact on the run of the chessgames as such, should be worse?
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
The rules are there to create a certain environment and behavior which the organizers find desirable. Not to provide an opportunity for implementing sanctions. Sanctions in general have side effects which are undesirable.
So the sanctions should be kept at the absolute minimum level as is required for getting the desired behavior. If we can achieve the purpose by a warning, because the offender repents and / or is a reasonable person, there is no need to go further than that. However, if the offender clearly shows that the rule book to him is not more than toilet paper, warnings would not result any effect. Such a person needs more drastic sanctions in order to convince him to comply with the rules.
In summary, the severeness of punative measures are much more dependent on the offender's attitude, than on the magnitude of the crime.
The rules are there to create a certain environment and behavior which the organizers find desirable. Not to provide an opportunity for implementing sanctions. Sanctions in general have side effects which are undesirable.
So the sanctions should be kept at the absolute minimum level as is required for getting the desired behavior. If we can achieve the purpose by a warning, because the offender repents and / or is a reasonable person, there is no need to go further than that. However, if the offender clearly shows that the rule book to him is not more than toilet paper, warnings would not result any effect. Such a person needs more drastic sanctions in order to convince him to comply with the rules.
In summary, the severeness of punative measures are much more dependent on the offender's attitude, than on the magnitude of the crime.
In a way this is all true. However let's stick to the case. You have four guys, Bob, Erdo, Vas and Harvey. Would you say that compared to Harvey - Bob, Erdo and Vas are clearly the bigger offenders of the rules? And then, if cheating gets no punishment then what all the rules are worth for? The attitude? In our justice system there is no linkage between dimensions of a crime and sense of guilt. In computerchess the tradition and the programmers define the climate, not, excuse me, some helpful organisers of online tournaments. Even the big reputation of an arbiter like J.vdHerigk cant justify every decision. What he says is decisive for a particular situation in a tournament but it can well be judged as nonsense in a deeper evaluation. Everytime Bob writes about the old days you can understand that practically everything has been discussed at the time already. They knew what could be forbidden and what reasonably not because you cant prove a wrong-doing.. Rules as such never played a major role becaused there is a hierarchy of rules. The highest is "Hands-Off" during a running game... It's so basic!
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
If I would have to rank them, Vas is at the top of my list of people who have to be put right. Harvey made an honest mistake, and won't do it again. Bob merely committed an oversight, and would / could surely have fixed that on the spot if anyone would have been disturbed by that seriously enough to notify him of it. As no one did, Bob is not to blame for anything. In the first round my opponent notified me that uMax did not kibitz. This was due to a bug, and in the next round I had fixed it. The opponent did not see any reason in this to file a formal complaint. If he would have, and the TD would have considered the kibitzing so important that the game could not continue without it, I could have disconnected and fixed it within a few minutes. But if I were TD, I would simply have said even after objection: finish the game, and be sure it is fixed before the next round.
What Erdo is supposed to have done wrong is not clear to me.
How likely do you think it is that Rybka will be able to kibitz before the next ICC event?
hgm wrote:If I would have to rank them, Vas is at the top of my list of people who have to be put right. Harvey made an honest mistake, and won't do it again. Bob merely committed an oversight, and would / could surely have fixed that on the spot if anyone would have been disturbed by that seriously enough to notify him of it. As no one did, Bob is not to blame for anything. In the first round my opponent notified me that uMax did not kibitz. This was due to a bug, and in the next round I had fixed it. The opponent did not see any reason in this to file a formal complaint. If he would have, and the TD would have considered the kibitzing so important that the game could not continue without it, I could have disconnected and fixed it within a few minutes. But if I were TD, I would simply have said even after objection: finish the game, and be sure it is fixed before the next round.
What Erdo is supposed to have done wrong is not clear to me.
How likely do you think it is that Rybka will be able to kibitz before the next ICC event?
I guess I need to defend Vas here a bit. It's not exactly true that he didn't try to make Rybka or better the GUI kibitz.
Sunday morning (before the tournament restarted) Rybka played several games vs my engine to see if kibitzing would work now when playing under CA9. Rybka did kibitz during those games but couldn't use the opening book at first. At some point the problem with the opening book vanished but either the GUI or the engine crashed then, so Vas switched back to Arena and couldn't kibitz the second day either.
Of course, there still remains the issue that he didn't try to resolve those shortcomings before the tournament rather than during the tournament.
hgm wrote:What Erdo is supposed to have done wrong is not clear to me.
IMO he came too late. IMO RYBKA came also too late. It's beyond me why you now call Harvey's an honest mistake. It was cheating. Why not believing Bob? If not him who's still here from the old days of the famous ACMs? They created the first rules for computerchess on the fly (during intensive debates) and from that time the direct intervening is called cheating. Compared to Bob's record and experience and willingness to participate it is scandalous how some here tried to talk to him. Also Harvey went too far IMO.
If you expected an answer from me for the RYBKA topic, then I would say that Vas is in a strange situation. His program is the best. His evaluations are the best. And therefore he might fear that if he allowed kibitz that then this could help his opponents. More so if Harvey is correct with his opinion that "others" influence their machines during games too... You are certainly better qualified than me to judge.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
hgm wrote:What Erdo is supposed to have done wrong is not clear to me.
IMO he came too late. IMO RYBKA came also too late. It's beyond me why you now call Harvey's an honest mistake. It was cheating. Why not believing Bob? If not him who's still here from the old days of the famous ACMs? They created the first rules for computerchess on the fly (during intensive debates) and from that time the direct intervening is called cheating. Compared to Bob's record and experience and willingness to participate it is scandalous how some here tried to talk to him. Also Harvey went too far IMO.
If you expected an answer from me for the RYBKA topic, then I would say that Vas is in a strange situation. His program is the best. His evaluations are the best. And therefore he might fear that if he allowed kibitz that then this could help his opponents. More so if Harvey is correct with his opinion that "others" influence their machines during games too... You are certainly better qualified than me to judge.
As you are not enough qualified,why are you labeling Harvey with the word cheating
Who are you to post such annoying statements,a
Stop flaming the situation and change this attitude of yours of trolling and making troubles....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
An honest mistake can still be cheating. A crime that you commit unknowingly is, legally, still a crime. Harvey cheated without being aware that he cheated. Cheating says nothing about intent, just about the result.
It is wrong to assume that everyone knows what Bob knows. Some of us are in this a lot shorter than Bob. If things are not stressed often enough, newcomers will not be aware of them, and things like this will continue to happen. Information for this tournament was rather scarce anyway.
Unfortunately tournaments like this offer unlimited opportunities for cheating. If I enter Joker, no one can actually check if I am using Joker, and not Glaurung with a filtered PV for the purpose of kibitzing. I can program my engine so that it can be controlled completely interactively in real time, recommend it moves, suggest it strategies, telling it when to use more time. (Not that this would help it much, in my case.) For someone that can program an engine, implementing such cheats is dead simple.
hgm wrote:What Erdo is supposed to have done wrong is not clear to me.
IMO he came too late. IMO RYBKA came also too late. It's beyond me why you now call Harvey's an honest mistake. It was cheating. Why not believing Bob? If not him who's still here from the old days of the famous ACMs? They created the first rules for computerchess on the fly (during intensive debates) and from that time the direct intervening is called cheating. Compared to Bob's record and experience and willingness to participate it is scandalous how some here tried to talk to him. Also Harvey went too far IMO.
If you expected an answer from me for the RYBKA topic, then I would say that Vas is in a strange situation. His program is the best. His evaluations are the best. And therefore he might fear that if he allowed kibitz that then this could help his opponents. More so if Harvey is correct with his opinion that "others" influence their machines during games too... You are certainly better qualified than me to judge.
As you are not enough qualified,why are you labeling Harvey with the word cheating
Who are you to post such annoying statements,a
Stop flaming the situation and change this attitude of yours of trolling and making troubles....
Behave yourself - I am quoting what Bob Hyatt wrote. I'm qualified enough to quote what he had written. Cheating is _his_ term, not mine. Sorry, if you misunderstood that.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
