Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 08:06:05 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 11:00:16, Sven Reichard wrote: >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. I agree that would be the best solution. Bob suggested that kind of thing too with a mini-ICC of some sort. Honestly, chances that the ICGA would switch to this kind of thing are slim. IMHO. Sargon
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.