
Once again all four professional programs won their games, quite easily and
without much ado. In round ten Fritz cut Chinito to ribbons, but in the final
round Fritz seemed to have a dead draw against Parsos. Most people had already
began to celebrate Shredder (which was obviously winning) as the new world
champion, when the new positional algorithms of Fritz started to do their magic
and the program slowly ground down its German opponent.

Rudolf Huber of Parsos (left) does not understand what the positional magic
of Fritz is doing to his drawn position
Deep Junior beat Diep in the penultimate even though the Dutch program for
a time had two extra pawns. Brutus easily disposed of Nexus but had to do actual
work to beat Quark.

With GM Peter Wells playing a league game (against a carbon-based opponent)
it was left to ICGA president David Levy to comment on the games
In round ten Shredder deftly outplayed Parsos, investing two pawns and then
a piece for an irresistible kingside attack. In the last round the many-time
world champion had white against the trailing amateur program Jonny and duly
went into the attack.
Shredder - Jonny [B80] WCCC 2003 Graz (11), 29.11.2003
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.f4 0-0 8.Qf3 e5
9.Nf5 Bxf5 10.exf5 e4 11.Qh3 h6 12.Bh4 Qc7 13.g4 d5 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5 Nh5
16.0-0-0 Rc8 17.Bg3 Nf4 18.Bxf4 Qxf4+ 19.Kb1 Bxg5 20.f6 Nc6 21.fxg7 Kxg7 22.Be2
d4 23.Rhf1 Qh4 24.Qf5 dxc3 25.Rg1 Kf8 26.Rxg5 Ne7 27.Qf6 Qh7 28.Rd7 Ng6 29.Rxb7
Qg7 30.Qd6+ Kg8 31.Rxf7 Qxf7 32.Rxg6+ Kh7 33.Rg4 Rab8.

At this stage Shredder was displaying an advantage of over ten pawns, it was
on the verge of announcing mate. The game continued 34.Rh4+ Kg8 35.Rg4+
Kh7 36.Rh4+ Kg8 37.Rg4+ Kh7. At this point somebody said that Jonny
had claimed a three-fold repetition, but everyone assumed that was a misunderstanding.
However, spectators on the Playchess.com server soon ascertained that the notation
posted there indeed did contain a position that had occurred three times, with
the same side to move. You can see for yourself by loading the game on our
Javascript board and
clicking on the moves 33...Rab8, 35...Kh7 and 37...Kh7. The board position
doesn't change.
In the meantime the game had continued, with Shredder deviating with 38.Bc4
Rxb2+ 39.Ka1 Rxc4 40.Rh4+ Kg8 41.Qd8+ Qf8 42.Rg4+ Kf7 43.Qd7+ Qe7 and Stefan
Meyer-Kahlen's program was already announcing mate. This duly came with 44.Rf4+
Kg6 45.Qxe7 Rxa2+ 46.Kxa2 Ra4+ 47.Kb3 Rb4+ 48.Kxb4 a5+ 49.Kxc3 a4 50.Qf6+ Kh5
51.Rh4# 1-0.

Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (left) discusses Shredder's game with Johannes Zwanzger,
the author of Jonny.
But what about the three-fold repetition? After making sure there was no error
in the notation the ICGA jury retired to discuss the matter. Apparently the
Shredder interface contained a bug which allowed it to repeat postitions in
a totally winning position. The program Jonny had seen this and claimed the
draw (while displaying a 0.00 score). But as Johannes Zwanzger later said on
the Playchess.com server: "I did not want to draw the game in this way
against Stefan, just because his program has a bug." So he had simply
executed the move on the board, entered Shredder's reply and continued with
the game. [Here's an eye-witness account of what
transpired]
This is a very sporting gesture by the rookie programmer, one that brought
him the approving applause of many spectators. But his action does create some
problems for the ICGA. The first rule in computer chess has always been that
the human operator must be completely passive and may not interfere
in any way with the outcome of the game. Certainly he may not simply hand over
half a point to the opponent, however much he may like him or admire the performance
of his program. In this case his action in fact pushed Shredder into the joint
lead with Fritz, making a playoff on Sunday necessary to decide the world champion.

Press conference with main arbiter Prof Jaap van den Herik (right)
After debating the matter for a considerable period of time Prof Jaap van
den Herik appeared and read the decision of the committee given
below. You could sense that the world computer chess body was uncomfortable
with its decision. His speach and the Q&A session could be heard by visitors
to the Playchess.com server.
In
its decision the ICGA confirms that the Jonny program had announced its move
and stated on the screen “info” and “dreifache Stellungswiederholung”
(“information” and “threefold repetition of position”).
But, said Jaap van den Herik, this is different from "announcing its intention
of making the move and displaying wording to the effect that it was claiming
a draw," as the FIDE rules would requrie. The "Info" display
only meant that the program was supplying status information, not claiming
a draw.
Of course computers have always announced threefold repetitions in a Windows
alert box, we know of none that goes to the arbiter (or instructs its operator
to do this in its stead) to formally claim the draw. Were all previous claims
by computer programs illegitimate?
The ICGA also ruled that because the move had been completed on the board
it was no longer possible for the operator to claim a draw. But that would
imply that other errors committed by operators on the physical board would
have similar irrevocable consequences. What if an operator touches a piece
or executes a move that was not displayed by his program? Do you force the
program to play a move with the piece that was touched or accept the move the
operator erroneously executed on the board?
The positive side is that the ICGA has introduced an endearing human element
into computer chess, something the organisation had for many decades studiously
tried to eliminate from their tournaments. Minor program bugs will no longer
automatically lead to losses or disadvantages in the game, it is up to the
operator to decide how to act on such matters.
Here are all the results from the Computer Chess World Championship 2003 in
Graz:
Round 1 – Nov 22, 2003 |
Diep |
Quark |
1-0 |
List |
Shredder |
0-1 |
Chinito |
Jonny |
0-1
|
Nexus |
Parsos |
draw |
Fritz |
Falcon |
1-0 |
Hossa |
Deep Sjeng |
0-1 |
Deep Junior |
Ruy Lopez |
0-1 |
Green Light |
Brutus |
0-1 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 2 – Nov 23, 200 |
Deep Sjeng |
Fritz |
0-1 |
Jonny |
Nexus |
draw |
Quark |
List |
0-1 |
Falcon |
Hossa |
1-0 |
Parsos |
Deep Junior |
0-1 |
Shredder |
Diep |
1-0 |
Brutus |
Ruy Lopez |
1-0 |
Green Light |
Chinito |
1-0 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 3 – Nov 23, 200 |
Fritz |
Shredder |
1-0 |
Jonny |
Brutus |
0-1 |
Chinito |
Parsos |
1-0 |
Diep |
Falcon |
draw |
Nexus |
Deep Sjeng |
0-1 |
Ruy Lopez |
Green Light |
0-1 |
Deep Junior |
List |
1-0 |
Hossa |
Quark |
0-1 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 4 – Nov 24, 2003 |
Quark |
Chinito |
0-1 |
List |
Nexus |
1-0 |
Falcon |
Jonny |
1-0 |
Brutus |
Fritz |
1-0 |
Parsos |
Hossa |
1-0 |
Shredder |
Green Light |
1-0 |
Deep Sjeng |
Deep Junior |
0-1 |
Ruy Lopez |
Diep |
0-1 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 5 – Nov 25, 2003 |
Nexus |
Quark |
0-1 |
Deep Junior |
Fritz |
draw |
Shredder |
Brutus |
1-0 |
Jonny |
Parsos |
1-0 |
Hossa |
Ruy Lopez |
1-0 |
Diep |
Deep Sjeng |
draw |
Green Light |
Falcon |
1-0 |
Chinito |
List |
0-1 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 6 – Nov 26, 2003 |
Quark |
Parsos |
draw |
Deep Sjeng |
Jonny |
+– |
Fritz |
Diep |
1-0 |
Brutus |
Junior |
0-1 |
Hossa |
Nexus |
–/+ |
Falcon |
Shredder |
0-1 |
List |
Green Light |
draw |
Ruy Lopez |
Chinito |
0-1 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 7 – Nov 26, 2003 |
Green Light |
Fritz |
0-1 |
Parsos |
Falcon |
1-0 |
Nexus |
Ruy Lopez |
1-0 |
Junior |
Shredder |
draw |
Jonny |
Quark |
0-1 |
Chinito |
Deep Sjeng |
1-0 |
Diep |
Hossa |
1-0 |
List |
Brutus |
draw |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 8 – Nov 27, 2003 |
Brutus |
Diep |
1-0 |
Fritz |
List |
1-0 |
Shredder |
Chinito |
1-0 |
Ruy Lopez |
Parsos |
0-1 |
Hossa |
Jonny |
0-1 |
Falcon |
Nexus |
0-1 |
Quark |
Junior |
0-1 |
Deep Sjeng |
Green Light |
0-1 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 9 – Nov 28, 2003 |
Nexus |
Fritz |
0-1 |
Falcon |
Brutus |
0-1 |
Green Light |
Deep Junior |
0-1 |
Diep |
Jonny |
1-0 |
Shredder |
Quark |
1-0 |
Parsos |
Deep Sjeng |
1-0 |
Chinito |
Hossa |
1-0 |
Ruy Lopez |
List (disqual) |
1-0 |
Replay and download
games |
|
Round 10 – Nov 29, 2003 |
Deep Junior |
Diep |
1-0
|
Parsos |
Shredder |
0-1
|
Ruy Lopez |
Falcon |
0-1
|
Brutus |
Nexus |
1-0
|
Fritz |
Chinito |
1-0
|
Deep Sjeng |
Quark |
0-1
|
Jonny |
Green Light |
draw
|
Hossa |
List (disqual) |
1-0 |
Replay and download
games
|
|
Round 11 – Nov 29, 2003 |
Fritz |
Parsos |
1-0 |
Shredder |
Jonny |
1-0 |
Chinito |
Deep Junior |
0-1 |
Green Light |
Hossa |
1-0 |
Quark |
Brutus |
0-1 |
Diep |
Nexus |
0-1 |
Deep Sjeng |
Ruy Lopez |
1-0 |
Falcon |
List (disqual) |
1-0 |
Replay and download
games
|
|
|
Final Standings

All games are being transmitted live on the Playchess.com server. This includes
audio commentary by GM Peter Wells and video impressions from the tournament
hall.
In order to follow the games you can use Fritz or any Fritz-compatible
program (Shredder, Junior, Tiger, Hiarcs) to follow the action, or download
a free trial client here.
Links
ICGA
INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER GAMES ASSOCIATION
9, Springfield Avenue,
London N10 3SU,
England.
Telephone: +44 (0) 208 883 5180
e-mail: dlevy@msoworld.com
David Levy - President
Graz, Austria.
November 29th 2003
The game Shredder vs Jonny, 11th round, World Computer Chess Championship
During the game Shredder vs Jonny in the final round of the World Computer
Chess Championship a position arose for the third time in the game.
Rule 5 of the World Championship is: “Unless otherwise specified, rules
of play are identical to those of human tournament play. If a point is in question
the Tournament Director has the right to make the final decision.” There
is no mention in the World Championship rules of the procedure for claiming
a draw by threefold repetition and so the rules of tournament chess apply.
Under the FIDE rules, in order to claim a draw by threefold repetition a player
must announce his intention of making the move that leads to a threefold occurrence
of the same position and must make the claim, but without actually making the
move on the board. If he makes the move on the board this nullifies his claim.
When the relevant position arose in the Shredder vs Jonny game the Jonny program
announced its move and stated on the screen “info” and “dreifache
Stellungswiederholung”, meaning “information” and “threefold
repetition of position” respectively. The operator of the Jonny program
then made the program’s move on the board, pressed the clock and went
to call the Tournament Director, Jaap van den Herik. When Professor van den
Herik arrived at the board he could see that the move leading to the repetition
had been completed on the board.
Some discussion ensued. Profesor van den Herik ruled that because the move
had been completed on the board it was no longer possible for the operator
to claim a draw.
This game became the subject of much discussion on the Chessbase site and
will doubtless be discussed at length elsewhere. The ICGA would therefore like
to make it absolutely clear why Professor van den Herik’s ruling was
correct.
A draw could have resulted in one of two ways. Firstly, the program could
have claimed a draw using the correct procedure, announcing its intention of
making the move and displaying wording to the effect that it was claiming a
draw. (This is not the same as the statements “information” and
“threefold repetition of position”.) In this case the operator
would have been obliged to advise the Tournament Director that his program
had claimed a draw. The Tournament Director would then have verified the claim
by examining the move record of the game.
The second way is that, after the program’s statement, the operator
could have gone to the Tournament Director to claim a draw, without making
the move on the board and pressing the clock. The point here is that the move
is not complete until it has been made on the board, the hand has quitted the
piece and the clock has been pressed.
What in fact happened is that neither the program nor the operator made a
valid claim for a draw. Under these circumstances the fact that the game was
continued by the operator completing the move on the board nullifies the subsequent
claim for a draw. The Tournament Director’s decision was therefore correct.
It is most unfortunate that this incident occurred in a game by one of the
programs that tied for first place in the tournament. Those who have not seen
the game may be interested to know that Shredder was in a completely winning
position when, for an as yet unknown reason, it allowed the repetition. When
the game continued Shredder quickly won.
David Levy
[President]
An eye-witness description of what happened
By Deep Junior programmer Amir Ban
In the final phase of the game Shredder, in an easily won position, became
indecisive due to bugs, and finally stepped into a three-fold repetition while
showing a mate score. On Jonny's screen with the Chessbase interface the threefold
repetition message popped-up, and the game was marked as a draw.
Jonny's operator realized that Shredder had thrown away the game, and the
championship, and out of chivalry did not want to accept that. He went to the
TD v.d. Herik and asked for permission to continue playing.
However, the TD did not hear or understand the request, and told him to wait
until he comes by the board. When he arrived, Jonny had already played the
repetition move, and Shredder was pondering. The TD, still thinking that Jonny
was trying to claim a draw, ruled that as a move was played the draw cannot
be claimed. While the game continued this was discussed by the viewers, and
brought again to the attention of the TD, who said he will consider the matter
when the game is over.
When the game was over, the TD with other ICGA officials questioned the Jonny
and Shredder programmers about what had happened, inspected Jonny's chessbase
log, and talked to spectator programmers, including myself. Then they ruled
the Shredder's win stands, and called a programmer's meeting to announce and
explain the decision.
At this stage they still were not aware that Jonny's operator wanted to continue
rather than claim a draw. However, during the discussion Jonny's operator came
on stage and told frankly that his question to the TD when the 3-fold repetition
pop-up occurred was whether he is allowed to ignore it and continue.
I said at the meeting that in this case the ruling is not valid, because it
is not the case that Jonny erred in claiming a draw, but the opposite: the
operator did not want to claim it, and this is something he should not be allowed
to do.
Suppose the TD had understood his question: "I can claim a draw now,
but I request permission to go ahead and get mated". The obvious answer
by the TD is: "No way. You are not allowed to lose on purpose".
The TD, perplexed by this new twist, said that while possibly Jonny's operator
may be censured, his intentions do not change the technical chain of events,
so the ruling stays.
My opinion: In a human game refusing to claim a draw out of chivalry is something
that is within the rules. However, in a computer game the operator should not
be allowed to make decisions that are against the interests of the program.
An equivalent would be an endgame KNP vs. K, where the stronger side, due to
a bug, loses the pawn, but the opponent, rather than taking the pawn, chooses
to resign. No ICCA TD would allow such a resignation.
Posten in the Computer
Chess Club