Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: In computer games 3-fold repetition should be AUTOMATICALLY draw!

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 19:36:49 11/30/03

Go up one level in this thread


On November 30, 2003 at 22:21:32, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On November 30, 2003 at 19:46:08, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>
>>On November 30, 2003 at 13:03:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>Here, the case was different.  The computer said "I claim a draw". but the
>>>human chose to ignore that and keep playing.  _that_ is not allowed.
>>
>>There is a difference here.  The Fritz interface said 'there have been 3
>>repetitions of position', not the Johnny engine.  Supposedly, the engine didn't
>>know about the draw at all.  Neither the engine or the interface actually
>>_claimed_ the draw, either.
>
>
>The interface and engine are _one_ in this event.
>
>What precise wording does the engine have to use to satisfy you?
>
>IE "the game is a draw due to 3-fold repetition" (which it said)
>or
>"I claim a draw by 3-fold repetition".
>
>I am unaware of any specific wording requirements.  Just "this is a
>3-fold repetition" is enough when I TD a tournament.  I have even had
>players point at the board, hold up 3 fingers, and call me over.  That's
>good enough.
>
>But enough of this trying to separate the engine from the GUI>  We are
>talking about a "chess program" specifically here.  Without the GUI it
>is not a chess player since it can't communicate.  So trying to separate
>them doesn't fly.  The ICGA let this nonsense happen when they chose to
>allow shared GUIs, and shared opening books, and so forth.  They get
>exactly what they deserve as a result.

I don't wish to be accused of "splitting hairs," but in this tournament it was
not a competition of software versus software.  The hardware was an integral
part of the chess-playing machine.  It was a machine vs machine competition
where "machine" implies hardware married to software.

One could go a step further and suggest that the operator was part of the beast,
but that would suggest something we don't wish to discuss.  : )

Incidentally, as I pointed out earlier, "in the final analysis" it was a
competition between programmers.  The machines were just their proxies.  : )

The tournament directors should have merely been "supportive," not
"authoritarian dictators."

Bob D.



This page took 0.02 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.