Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:46:09 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 19:27:04, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 16, 2000 at 19:03:11, Mark Young wrote: > >>Translated from Dutch by me. >> >>Protest of Sergei Tiviakov 15 mei 2000 >> >>By: Sergei Tiviakov(source: Royal Dutch Chess Federation) >> >>Protest of Sergey Tiviakov against the handling of Frans Morsch in corporation >>with Fritz SSS* (Frans Morsch) >> >>I did everything to win this game and also reached also a completely won >>position (evaluation -+). The operator should not play further with a evaluation >>of -2 (equal to two pawns) on time. >> >>*In this situation the computer is not equal to a human player and has a huge >>advantage. The operator has to give up at respect for the human player.* >> >>_______________________________ >> >> >>I don't understand the logic of this protest. Can someone explain why just >>because a chess program is stronger then humans in some aspects and situations >>in chess, why this means the human should be awarded a win without winning the >>game? > > >Perhaps this helps. The logic is that the human would win against humans and the >human can't lose such a position, then the machine should lose and not draw the >game. We speak about classical tournament chess. Not rapid chess nor blitz. So What... "human would win agianst humans", why does this mean the human should be granted a win, if he can not beat the machine. The protest still makes no sense to me, and your statement makes just about as much sense.
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.