Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:41:06 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 19:49:40, Robert Hyatt 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. > >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. This is your opinion. If the TD thinks otherwise there should be a reason. > >> >>>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_. OK, here we agree and it shoud state "I resign". However since the programmer can fix the value for the program to accept a draw if this is set a -50 the score evaluation of 0.00 will be ignored by the chess engine and the program would not ask for a draw even if able to do it. Do you agree on this? So, to claim that a 3-fold repetion is automatically a draw is your interpretation of the rules, not the rule. If you state that we were lucky we won (a won game) simply because the opponent program did not ask for the draw, I agree, but no more than that. Also you must agree with me that the aim of the Championship is to show (if possible) which program is the strongest and to me this was clear after the defeat against Fritz...this is why I was sure we would have won. I do not have the crystal ball and my judgement was purely based on looking the programs play and their games, so the bugs were not considered... > >> >>>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. OK, this is correct, so the same it is true it is advising there is a 3-fold repetition and than...this does not mean a draw automatically...this is chess and the FIDE rules are clear on this matter. If programmers like you are not able to make programs with follows the FIDE rules is that my fault? I think it is your fault and you should only blame yourself not to have it made clear and following the FIDE rules. If this was made clear there would not have been so many different opionions. I guess you would agree on this or not? >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. Show me the rule that states this. >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... Did I said our program does it correctly? > >> >>>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.