Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:28:23 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. Then what is a "draw claim"??? I have been a TD for 30+ years. I've run hundreds of tournaments, with and without computer players. I don't have any specific wording that is required to claim a draw. Nor do I find any such wording requirement in my FIDE rule book. I have had a player look at me, hold up 3 fingers, and motion me over. _That_ was a perfectly valid 3-fold rep draw claim. I looked at the score sheed, and said "yes". The computer (the monitor, the cpu, the memory, the gui, the engine, the opening book, the endgame tables, the disk drives, the keyboard, the mouse, and so forth) said "this is a 3-fold repetition". Do you _really_ think it better to say "I claim this is a 3-fold repetition". Or "I want to claim a draw by the 3-fold repetition rule" or whatever? "3-fold repetition" would be enough for _any_ sane person. In FIDE events there are _no_ specific words required. In fact, I might not even be able to speak to the arbiter directly, due to a language issue. I might need to ask an interpreter to inform the arbiter of my claim. > >The operator is supposed to claim draws on behalf of the program when the >program actually does ask for a draw, not when he thinks the result is the best >for the engine or so. Correct. The computer "player" said "this is a draw". That's enough. > >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 That is wrong, there is no such FIDE rule at all. Nor is there any FIDE rule that explicitly gives the wording required to claim a 3-fold rep draw. > >"3.3 Only if the computer itself so instructs him may the operator offer a draw, >or claim a draw by repetition." The "computer" did this. _clearly_. > >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. What is a bug here? The gui says "this is a 3-fold repetition". It couldn't be any clearer or any more correct there. > > >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? The operator has _no_ choice. If the computer says "ask for a draw" then the operator must do so. > >Clearly the operator could say the engine and the GUI have not asked for a draw. The operator can't say _anything_. That is the point. The operator is _not_ part of the playing system. > >Who could claim the oppposite? Any rational person? > >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.