Author: Chessfun
Date: 22:24:40 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 22:14:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 13:54:10, Sandro Necchi 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. >> >>I was not there but what I wrote/being told makes you wrong, not me. > >Nope. The Johnny operator was told to claim a draw. He chose not to as >he thought Shredder should win. That is _not_ an option. There is no >discussion about that point. The operator is _passive_. His refusing to >claim the draw was _not_ passive. He admitted it. Just to point out what exactly happened. Quote. "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." http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1335 Take a look at that page as it shows the exact info screen the operator was supplied with. I agree he then went to ask if he could play on, which he wanted to do. But at this point he made the move prior to going to the TD. Sarah.
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.