Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:12:35 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 16:09:05, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 12:59:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 12:11:45, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>you are not fair as you did not read what has been written about what happened. >>> >>>What happened was allowed by the agreed (by all partecipants) rules. >> >>You are simply wrong. The operator can _not_ choose to play a move he >>wants to play. He _must_ play what the computer says to play. And in this >>case the computer said "I claim a draw" and the operator chose to ignore that >>and force the game to continue. > >The engine versus GUI issue was probably not completely fixed by rules, or at >least interpretable. > >Is the "computer" the engine and the GUI only a kind of input/output device? >I don't know the exact rules. I don't know whether Jonny used chess knowledge >from the GUI at all, like opening book and/or egdbs. > >IMHO GUIs should only act as input/output devices for none native engines. >"Grafical user interface" per definition, nothing more, nothing less. Only about >entering moves and to display a board and some status informations. >They should not provide any game decisive stuff at all for those engines, >otherwise they should banned. If they are not banned, but allowed, then the GUI is part of the project and the operator should not be allowed to interfere with the software. The TD allowed this which is against the rules. Worse, the Shredder team accepted the gift of a 1/2 point which their program failed to earn. This is a disgrace, IMO. MH > >Gerd > ><snip>
This page took 0.01 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.