Author: Sven Reichard
Date: 08:00:16 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 10:17:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >The operator made the decision to play on. But the operator is _not_ allowed >to make _any_ decisions while a game is in progress, as per the rules. >Therefore this reasoning simply is unsound because it is based on rules that >were not in effect. The operator is passive. He _always_ has been passive, >at least when we go by the rules in force for these events. > If he is always passive, I don't see the point of having an operator. Most programs run on all-purpose hardware (maybe enhanced by some additional circuits) with networking capabilities. Why not have the opponents communicate directly, using a standard interface like xboard or UCI, maybe relayed via an arbiter program? Then they can decide for themselves whether to offer or claim a draw. If the GUI makes decisions for the engine, the combination GUI/engine should be considered the competitor. Sven.
This page took 0.01 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.