Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 15:45:17 11/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>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. > >Are you only talking about this situation, or all cases of threefold rep? If the >latter, then why have the threefold rep rule at all? > >Regards >Dave I was just being cynical...I have this character flaw that causes me to make cynical comments that are right at the threshold of believability. Then when I'm called on it later, I might defend my comment, or not, based upon whether I'm still feeling cynical. In this situation, for example, I might argue that because the threefold rep could conceivably change the outcome of the tournment, then if Shredder goes on to win, we can ask if it won because it's Shredder, or because of the error or an operator having nothing to do with Shredder? Conceivably, then, the outcome of the entire tournament could be decided by lack of operator education. And since that constitutes violence to the integrity of the tournament and to the earnestness, hard work, and preparation of the participants, and since the tournament has already been compromised by the whole List affair, then clearly expert judgment is required to ensure that some technicality doesn't give victory where it's not deserved. But you know, rules are rules, right? In the letter from the IGCA on the chessbase site, they quote their own charter to make sure that everyone knows they're just following the rules. So if operator error works to further cloud the outcome of an already absurd tournament, then I think we can see the law of karma at work. 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.