Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:25:39 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 01:24:40, Chessfun wrote: >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. Again, none of this matters. The program said "info: threefold repetition of position". That is a draw claim. The operator was _required_ to make the claim. he didn't. The rules of the ICGA require that this happen. There is also a remedy when it didn't happen. There is _nothing_ that an operator can do to cause a program to be penalized in this fashion. If a wrong move is played on move 5, and the game goes to move 200, when the error is found the game backs up to move 5 and starts from that point. As per ICGA tournament rules. This violated that explicitly. Just because one program says "3-fold repetition" and another says "this is a 3-fold repetition" and another says "I claim a draw by 3-fold repetition" I think any reasonable person, knowing that the player is a computer program, would assume that all of those are identical. My computer never spits out "3-fold repetition" just for the hell of it. It says that if it thinks it is important and affects the game, which it definitely does.
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.