Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:49:40 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. Please show me that distinction in the ICGA tournament rules. It is a game between two computers playing chess. Nothing more, nothing less. Further arguments are simply obfuscation. > >>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. > >>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... Operators should not resign. Programs should resign. Then there is no ambiguity whatsoever. But in this case, the program did its part. It popped up a dialog box that had to be dismissed before the game could continue. The program can hardly call the TD over _itself_. > >>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. Again, nit-picking nit-splitting obfuscation. When the machine says "my move is Nf3" it is not "claiming that is its move". It is advising the operator that is what it wants to play. Why this silly semantic game??? >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... That is crap. If the program repeats the position for the third time, it is _clearly_ saying "I want the draw by repetition". Any other interpretation is simply ridiculous. Unless you buy the idea that when it prints out a move, it is merely suggesting that that move be played... >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..." this was not done...so the >operator could not force the draw, nor ask for it... Your program doesn't do it right either. Do you _still_ claim repetition draws??? That's what I thought... pot... kettle... > >>5.Therefore a draw should have been the result. > >No, see above... > >> >>So I have missed the point as to why the machine claimed the draw incorrectly. > >Did not claim a draw at all! > >>I was working on the premise that the GUI (part of the entered machine) said >>draw (point 4). Is this wrong? > >Yes, I hope now it is clear. >> >>Frank > >Sandro
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.