Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 12:14:00 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 14:45:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 10:16:51, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>This is too subtle for me. It is an event between machines with the operator >>acting as a go between (a mistake in my view). The machine said draw, >therefore the operator must claim the draw. As far as I can see it just >>another 'move' indicated by the machine and the operator has no right to move >>for the machine. > >By the same reasoning, the machine claimed the draw incorrectly, so >the operator has no right to claim the draw correctly, so he had no choice >but to play on (or resign). > >QED > >-- >GCP I do not understand what you are saying. My point is based on the following: 1.The contest was between machines. 2.The machine in question was the entity that was the engine plus the chessbase GUI. 3.It would have been better if the machines played without human interference, but failing this the operator should not have been able to influenece the result. 4.The machine claimed a draw (ie its 'move' was draw). 5.Therefore a draw should have been the result. So I have missed the point as to why the machine claimed the draw incorrectly. I was working on the premise that the GUI (part of the entered machine) said draw (point 4). Is this wrong? Frank
This page took 0.03 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.