Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:42:05 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 10:12:49, George Sobala wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 08:41:05, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 08:38:19, George Sobala wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 2003 at 08:28:22, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On November 30, 2003 at 07:05:36, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>>> >>>>>What a WCCC. I guess all participants and TDs are a few years older by now and >>>>>need some vacations ;-) >>>>> >>>>>Anyway, big compliments and congrats to Stefan Meyer-Kahlen and his great >>>>>program Shredder. Also congrats to the very unlucky Frans Morsch and his Fritz. >>>>>Both programs really played great chess! >>>>> >>>>>About the 3-fold repetition issue - after Gian-Carlo's statement here, that >>>>>Jonny didn't know about 3-fold repetition at all, but only the fritz-gui, >>>>>i'll think the decision made by the TD was finally correct. >>>> >>>>It matters not that the engine could not detect a 3-fold, it is a draw according >>>>to the rules of chess, just like the 50-move rule or checkmate. Also, an >>>>operator is not allowed to force his engine to take a lower result. That's >>>>throwing the game and thus illegal, unethical, and cheating all at the same >>>>time. The TDs allowed it thus nullifying the result of the tournament. >>>> >>>>MH >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Gerd >>> >>>It is not an automatic "draw according to the rules of chess", only if claimed. >>>It seems it was not claimed. >> >> >>The software being used claimed a draw. If the operator had not intervened, the >>draw would stand with no questions asked. >> >>Is this not so? >> >>If so, then the human intervention to turn the = to a 0 is wrong. >> >>Matt > >But if the operator is faced with the GUI saying one thing and the engine saying >another some sort of decision is called for. This was not the case because jonny said nothing. And at the end of the day the >engine should be considered to have priority - this was a championship to find >the best engine not the best interface. In that case the interface should not be allowed to play in the first place. After it was allowed then it is clear that the interface is playing like happened in prevuious rounds. > >I am astonished at the rancour and bad feeling flying about concerning this. >Basically BOTH engines blew it and missed the repetition (incredible though it >may seem in a World Championship). C'est la vie. Shredder has every right to be >considered the "moral victor" in this won position as Jonny. No The operator lost on purpose and he is not allowed to do it. I also think that it is better to have a rule that the position on the board decide and not claim of the program. programmers do not need to care about claiming draws if it is possible to have interface that care about that problem and they only need to care not to blunder and allow draw by repetition. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.