Author: Alastair Scott
Date: 08:12:48 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 08:28:22, Matthew Hull wrote: >It matters not that the engine could not detect a 3-fold, it is a draw according >to the rules of chess, just like the 50-move rule or checkmate. Also, an >operator is not allowed to force his engine to take a lower result. That's >throwing the game and thus illegal, unethical, and cheating all at the same >time. The TDs allowed it thus nullifying the result of the tournament. It's deja vu all over again :) I've forgotten which match it was (they've merged into a blur) but there was a big hoo-ha when a draw offer was considered to be improperly made by an operator. It's the same issue this time round - when an "offer" or "claim" is made, who (or what) ultimately is doing the offering or claiming? My immediate solution to ambiguity was to completely cut the operator out of the loop. However, even if two programs were autonomous, there would still be anomalies in exceptional circumstances: for example, program A improperly misses a threefold repetition, program B does and refuses to continue, therefore A sits there expecting a move until B's clock runs out and A claims a win on time ... which is clearly absurd. I think some gigantic committee is going to have to thrash out issues like this for months and come up with a boring document which covers as many situations as it can envisage ;) Alastair
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.