Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:47:40 09/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2003 at 17:05:40, Andrew Williams wrote: >On September 21, 2003 at 16:51:19, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 21, 2003 at 16:46:27, Edward Seid wrote: >> >>>I just wondered if there was a specific situation that occurred that caused >this rule to be implemented. Like who was involved and what happened. >> >>There were several accusations in the past tournament about >>people overruling moves from their engines. At least one of the >>people involved later admitted he manually interfered with the >>time usage of the engine. >> >>PS. I don't think the current rules actually prevent this >>either, which is why I'm not so hot about online tournaments. >> > >Hi GCP, > >I agree that it's still possible to interfere, but it just makes it more >difficult, which is the point, IMHO. Perhaps as a professional it's not >"watertight" enough, but for the amateurs I think it is sufficient. > >Andrew The main problem was the fear that non programmers will participate. This was the reason for the duty to kibitz. The fear that programmers will change the time management or the move of the program is not the big problem because I think that in a lot of cases it is not going to be productive. Personally I prefer to have a tournament when the programmers have the right to change the move or the time management of the program but in case that they do it the program needs to kibitz information about it. I think that it is going to be more interesting. Uri
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.