Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:29:29 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 04:18:00, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >As far as I understand Jonny did not claim draw at all. >Not because the program did not ask for it while the interface did, but becasue >both the prorgam and interface NEVER did a draw claim. > >The interface showed a pop-up claiming "3 fold repetition" and this is NOT a >draw claim. > >The operator is supposed to claim draws on behalf of the program when the >program actually does ask for a draw, How ? Maybe by showing a pop-up claiming "3 fold repetition" ? If that isn't asking then what is ? Tony >not when he thinks the result is the best >for the engine or so. > >Actually if we strictly follow FIDE rules the operator can ask a draw for 3-fold >repetition only if the engine does the explicit claim > >"3.3 Only if the computer itself so instructs him may the operator offer a draw, >or claim a draw by repetition." > >source: >http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE3 > >so the operator was not even allowed to ask for a draw for repetition. > >This is a serious Fritz GUI bug. > > >I agree that an engine cannot call the referee and ask for the draw but it can >state something like "the engine asks the draw" and this would be a regular way >to notify to the operator that the engine is asking for the draw. > >Imagine the opposite scenario: >a prorgam with no Chessbase gui does not detect the 3-fold repetition, Shredder >in CB gui does and the GUI announces 3-fold repetition. Should the operator of >shredder ask for the draw or go for the best for the engine and continue? > >Clearly the operator could say the engine and the GUI have not asked for a draw. > >Who could claim the oppposite? > >regards >Franz
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.