Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:37:42 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 11:12:48, Alastair Scott wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 08:28:22, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>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. > >It's deja vu all over again :) > >I've forgotten which match it was (they've merged into a blur) but there was a >big hoo-ha when a draw offer was considered to be improperly made by an >operator. It's the same issue this time round - when an "offer" or "claim" is >made, who (or what) ultimately is doing the offering or claiming? > >My immediate solution to ambiguity was to completely cut the operator out of the >loop. However, even if two programs were autonomous, there would still be >anomalies in exceptional circumstances: for example, program A improperly misses >a threefold repetition, program B does and refuses to continue, therefore A sits >there expecting a move until B's clock runs out and A claims a win on time ... >which is clearly absurd. > >I think some gigantic committee is going to have to thrash out issues like this >for months and come up with a boring document which covers as many situations as >it can envisage ;) > >Alastair There is a special case: What if the game has been going on for hundreds of moves with no end in sight? Reason must prevail. The tournament needs an adjudication procedure after a fixed number of moves, such as 50 or 100. My uneducated guess is that there is still a little room for improvement in the rules. : ) Bob D.
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.