Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:07:08 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 17:38:11, Frank Phillips wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 16:45:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 15:14:00, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>No, between chess engines. > >;-) > >> >>>2.The machine in question was the entity that was the engine plus the chessbase >>>GUI. >> >>OK, but the engine was playing, not the chess GUI. > >This where we part company..... (It chose book moves, I believe.). > > >> >>>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. >> >>This was allowed as the operator should have been the one to ask the TD to be >>allowed to resign...see Darsen post which is complete... >> >>>4.The machine claimed a draw (ie its 'move' was draw). >> >>No, the machine did not claimed a draw. The GUI advised that there was a 3-moves >>repetition. This is not a draw claim. >>Since the programmer can set the draw value in it's program. If the setting is >>accept a draw only when the score is -50, than the GUI showing a 3 moves >>repetition would be ignored by the engine...so this is not a draw claim, but >>only a info display... >>It is therefore wrong to claim that an info advising a 3 moves repetions is an >>automatic draw. The program should state clearly "I am going to play "..." which >>will draw the game according to FIDE rule..." As far as I know no single program does it according to the fide rules. Even my movei does it by claiming a draw together with the move that it is going to play. No problem with changing the rules of computer chess that are not the fide rules but you should tell it to the participants before the championship and not after it. I wonder what happened in other drawn games like Diep-falcon. Did one of the engines in the game claimed the draw correctly based on your definition? Uri
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.