Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 15:33:37 11/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2003 at 17:47:29, David H. McClain wrote: >On November 29, 2003 at 17:05:05, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>>So what you are saying George is that a tree fold repetition does not apply to >>>computer chess? >>> >>>DHM >> >>Yup, if one program clearly outplays another but somehow allows a threefold rep, >>then the win should be awarded. But, if it only marginally outplays the other >>program, then a draw is a draw. If the boundary between "clearly" and >>"marginally" is fuzzy, then a panel can be formed to decide the issue. > > >So lemme get this straight: > >The WCCC Tournament decides what computer chess program is the best with no >hardware boundaries. > >They do have a rule about threefold repetition, don't they? > >The programmer screws up his programming and allows this to happen against an >apparently weaker program. > >Suddenly the rules change and a three fold repetition is ignored by everyone >because Shredder has the better past reputation, but not today. > >The superior program should really be the winner in spite of the rules because >the programmer blundered on his programming and should not be help responsible >for that. > >And this proves that the best program won? > >Gimme a break............ :) I was just joking, but as I understand it, the operator screwed up and didn't ask for a draw before his move. He asked for a draw after releasing the piece, at which time it was no longer his move, and Shredder won, and that may change the outcome of the tournament, thus further spoiling it beyond what the disqualification of List has done. Roger
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.