Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 12:40:53 11/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2002 at 04:19:47, Sune Fischer wrote: >A team of world class programmers should have no trouble implementing this >feature in their GUI if they so desired, so it really sounds like on poor excuse >to me. Hi Sune, This logic is in direct contrast to the reasons for adding these rules in the first place. One argument I heard was that it was simply "too easy" for an operator to force a move or whatever. With the new rule, it forces someone who wants to cheat to "do more work" (a tiny amount, but "more"). Before, a commercial participant could "just play", but now the commercial participant has to "do more work". So, why do you expect some participants to "do more work" to support an automatic protocol, but you don't expect that others will not "do more work" to get around the rule and cheat anyway? I agree that it will make the games more interesting, but that is the only reason I can see so far for such a rule. If you want to have the rule for that reason, I'm all for it, but I wish people would stop acting like this is such a great rule that's going to put an end to cheating once and for all. Just say that the rule is for the purpose of making the games more interesting, and leave it at that, because what this rule does for cheating is kind of like putting up a paper wall to keep people from sneaking into your backyard and stealing stuff. The theif has to do "more work" to get in your backyard now, just like the programmer has to do "more work" to cheat. As I posted the other day, it's about 3 new lines of code to cheat with this new rule. Russell
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.