Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:31:37 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 08:40:03, Albert Silver wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 04:29:29, Tony Werten wrote: > >>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 ? > >The issue of the origin of the draw claim is not inimportant in my opinion. It >was stated that the engine cannot recognize draws by repetition itself, and that >the pop-up originated from the GUI. If so, the pop-up would not be acceptable to >me if I were the arbiter and aware of these two facts. Furthermore the GUI >didn't 'claim' a draw but merely stated a 3-fold repetition had taken place, >which though a fine line, is also a distinct one IMO. Both points are wrong in this case. FIDE rules do _not_ require me to say "I claim a draw by 3-fold repetition". I can say "This is a draw by 3-fold repetition". I can say "3-fold repetition" if that is all I know in the language the arbiter uses. No specific wording is needed. Second, there is _no_ distinction in computer chess rules between the GUI and the program. There have been _many_ cases where the move displayed by the GUI was wrong due to bugs. And in every case, what the GUI displayed was taken as the correct move, not what the engine might have popped into a log file or an analysis window. This is inconsistent with 30+ years of computer chess competitions. The decision was wrong. Or else dozens of prior decisions were wrong. Either way is bad for the ICGA. > > Albert > >> >>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.