Author: James T. Walker
Date: 18:39:26 08/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 1999 at 04:31:03, Shep wrote: >On August 18, 1999 at 14:15:59, James T. Walker wrote: > > >>Hello Shep, >>I guess I'm not very sensible for wanting the program to play by the rules of >>chess which includes playing by the clock. It's beyond my comprehension why you >>would play a rated game in a tournament under time control conditions and not >>think playing according to the clock is important. That reminds me of a guy I >>used to play golf with. He didn't think the rules of golf were important or >>applied to him. I like CST-2 but it has some problems which need attention. >>This one happens to be my pet peeve. The clock gives both players a fair >>allotment of time which should be followed. If you fail to play the given >>number of moves in the alloted time you lose! Other than that it's not >>important. >>Jim Walker > >It's a matter of philosophy. I am not a slave to the rulebook, besides my SCCS >tournament rules don't even mention this issue. :) >I want to test playing strength. If one program steps over the time control by >13 seconds (which is about 1/550th of the alotted overall time), it does not >matter much and does not constitute any unfair advantage over its opponent. > >It is also a matter of etiquette. I wouldn't claim a victory in a tournament >because my opponent took 13 seconds too long on his 40th move. If he took 5 >minutes, that would be another issue, but this way it is just as unsportsmanlike >to claim a victory as it is to overstep the controls. >(Actually, I even hate people with "Autoflag=on" on ICC... ;-)) > >--- >Shep Hello Shep, Thanks for inputting your "Philosophy" on chess also. Henceforth I will pay no attention to any of your stastics on tournaments since they have no scientific basis. Jim Walker
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.