Adjudicate games with program? Constructive Input welcome

[tommyc]

"Personally I would love to see clocks used at all tournaments to also standardize and elevate the stature of the game". says Alan

And i have to agree also that the move-a minute skittle draughts to determine a result is not on.

Why is it so difficult for intelligent and educated people to see sense?.

[Mr. Checkers]

Ingo I was not surprised that you failed to address any of the important questions that I posed concerning this matter. I knew what the point was many years ago when I observed the outcome of many tournament checker matches determined by "backroom deals" and not by across the board play--and in many cases the games were never even played. And that still determines match results even today. What is truly fair is to allow players to determine the results of their own games through across the board play: without outside interference or manipulation by others or machines. If a player does not have the necessary checker background knowledge to bring about a win then he should not be afforded one through other means. If players are not following the rules of a match then that is the referees job to deal with those situations, but unfortunately in many cases they don't for personal reasons. If the time runs out but the game is not yet finished then the game should be over period and a "draw" should be called. There is no overtime in checkers that I am aware of and there is certainly no one with the expertise in checkers today to accurately adjudicate a checker match without injecting their own personal checker biases into it. Tournament and book games are corrected and recorrected and recorrected etc. etc. etc. on almost a daily basis on the ACF Forum, which should show all of us that there are a lot of new and exciting checker outcomes yet to be discovered in years to come. "Inky"

[Ingo_Zachos]

:lol: Ingo I knew what the point was many years ago when I observed the outcome of many tournament checker matches determined by "backroom deals" and not by across the board play--and in many cases the games were never even played. ...

So, you r complaining about backroom deals, but you refuse any measure against it ?
That approach won't work!
Clocks, recording of games, time limits and quick play finish or ajudication are all reducing the risk of backdoor deals, so your argument turns against you heavily!

Another thing you still mistake is that a game is a called a loss by ajudication.
I thing this will not be the case.
It will be called a draw, it is a draw. And if you r a good player, you r aware that the "machine" can determine a draw more objective and more unbiased then any human (except a few border cases, but with databases even these border cases get reduced).
You can still prefer to take a sailing ship, if you don't think planes r safe, but reality is different from your fears.

Greetinx from Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Mr. Checkers]

Ingo you are obviously mis-reading what I am trying to say. We are both stating these things as we see them-thats fine and I am not asking anyone to agree with either of one of our viewpoints, but why are you avoiding answering my questions concerning this matter? And clocks, recording of games etc. in no way reduce "backdoor deals", which are unfortunately part of our game today. I have seen master players turn in their games to the tournament director that were recorded, but were never played. And Ingo should any of your future draught games ever need to be adjudicated I will personally allow the person doing that to use our "Checker Challenger IV computer for that purpose. I am sure that you would be thankful and not have any objections to our doing that for you. "Inky"

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Personally I've seen only one situation when game can be terminated and adjudicated - when someone pass away during the game or due to illness cannot continue the play. In any other cases the game which had started must be finished or fortfeit. No outside intervention must be allow.

Often enough directors ask me for adjudication during the tournaments. In most cases I decline this offer because it is not my game and it is not a right procedure.

Alex

[rich beckwith]

[quote:1bf7376dbc]Personally I would love to see clocks used at all tournaments to also standardize and elevate the stature of the game". says Alan
Why is it so difficult for intelligent and educated people to see sense?.[/quote:1bf7376dbc]

Tommy,

Our present U.S. National tournament rules (where there is a generous amount of time per round and between rounds) already state that move-a-minute will not be enforced when clocks are used. While it may be a cultural issue, clocks are often not used in smaller weekend tournaments in the U.S., even for pool checkers. This is not to say this mindset shouldn’t ever change, but it’s just the current situation. (Most minor/major level players already play fast so that over-run games are rarely a problem.)
*******
Even when clocks are used, it’s still possible (though uncommon) to have run-on games, such as the 5-hour Octopus game I had with Alex, topped by our 6+ hour game for the 2005 Ohio match. The format permitted time to complete these most interesting games at normal pace (and thereby eliminate this controversy), but this is not always the case at a fast-paced weekend Illinois tournament with restrictive mall hours and only 15 minutes between rounds. Fortunately, I suspect most tournaments are usually able to plan their round schedule without such tight timelines, as I feel it is desirable to “let them play it out” as much as possible without rule changes midway through a game.

Some here have proposed systems where you are allotted a fixed amount of time and then you forfeit, regardless of what stage of the game you are on. Maybe this is common in some regions to keep a tournament on schedule, but based on what happened in Prague in 2005, it seemed people were declining draw offers simply because of a time advantage so that they could eventually force their opponent into the fast-play skittles nonsense. (Although I would feel better about this idea if referees would readily declare a draw when only a minor advantage exists, but I don’t think it’s universal what constitutes a “minor” advantage(?)) Also, a beautiful Octopus ending could be prevented from ever taking place when the clock time is limited to ~1 hour and additional time cannot be earned.

[Mr. Checkers]

Richard time limits should always be stated before the beginning of the match. i.e. 2 hours. If the game is not completed at the end of that time then a "draw" should be called--without delay. If you want to take another 3 hours or a lifetime to figure out how the game could have ended then that would be your decision to make, but that added play would take place only after the official game had ended. I have seen time limit situations being extended to the better players, which was not fair to other players. Bending the rules to benefit certain players or to accomodate the results of a match is certainly not right or acceptable--and a Octopus should be able to finish a game on time, everytime, since it has more arms to move the checkers across the board faster. Why so much time is being spent on checker quirks that only benefit a handful of checker players at the expense of the greater majority of players is beyond me. One would think that the ACF would have more important issues on the front burner that need to be addressed and resolved, but I may be wrong. If one blinks then who knows what may have transpired during that momment in time--they may have added a "13th" checker to our game that can move straight ahead or sideways--hopefully it will be a colorful one. "Inky"

[Pedro Saavedra]

> You have missed the point Pedro,we are talking here running a Ty without > clocks Do you have a solution?

But I thought you were also considering adding a clock at some point on request. Then you need to consider clock use issues.

[tommyc]

"But I thought you were also considering adding a clock at some point on request" says Pedro.

This will not be neccessary if time clocks are in use from the first move,where a certain amount of time is allotted and if the flag falls then of course you know that you lose.

If your opponent has regulated his moves by time then he can not be punished because he has more time left. I disagree with MB on this point if you dilly dally then you are not entitled to recourse or a draw.There is more to a draughts game than moving the pieces.

If its the case that not enough clocks are available(as can happen) say for the bottom division then the referee will add a clock that becomes available from another table for the slow players in order to be able make a draw for the nxt round of play.

[tommyc]

"Octopus game I had with Alex, topped by our 6+ hour game for the 2005 Ohio match" syas Richard.

I take your point Richard but that was probobly a match-play situation which does not apply in Ty play.I assume you were doing 28 mvs to the hour or similar.

"Restrictive mall hours and only 15 minutes between rounds" Richard said...at some Tys. I would really have thought this fact makes the use of clocks imperative to ensure fair play and also to give players a guide as to their position in any given Ty. There is no way i could run a Ty under these circumstances it would be a nightmare as draughts players can be more petulant than small children.

"Based on what happened in Prague in 2005" that was fun with lots of clocks but no engineer!! but we had Ingo, matter of fact i was looking at a Devlin-Holmes Barbados 04 game (annotated by Hugh)the same opening we had in Prague where he says 914 was unusual with 7-11 normal play!!. Anyways the debate goes on but in my opinion there is no debate really as there is only one solution and we all know it.So lets face our demons and get on with it.

[Pedro Saavedra]

Some times a model from one game does not work well in another. The tradition in Swiss tournaments in chess has always been that the last round is played to a conclusion, even in games which do not affect the final outcome. As a TD I had spent many an hour waiting for two players to finish a difficult end game with no money at stake.

Well, I once played in a Teams of 4 bridge tournament. It was the last round and we were behind, but my partner and I had set our opponents in a hand where a slam in a different suit was easy. We were eagerly waiting for our teammates to get the hand, but as the tournament reached the announced closing time, the directors came around and ordered all hands to stop.

I was furious. That was not how we did it in chess, but it was how they did it in bridge. It was my last bridge tournament, but in retrospect I was setting the practice of years of putting up with long games and sacrificing my time to a principle that games should be played out as the norm for people who never even heard of that practice.

I do not like adjudications. I prefer the use of clocks. First so many moves at five minutes and remaining of the game sudden death (when flag falls you lose) can be a way of dealing with too few clocks. Time lags can handle positions where players move just to make their opponent's flag fall. Most games will not get that far.