Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:18:14 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 22:36:49, Bob Durrett wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 22:21:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 19:46:08, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 2003 at 13:03:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Here, the case was different. The computer said "I claim a draw". but the >>>>human chose to ignore that and keep playing. _that_ is not allowed. >>> >>>There is a difference here. The Fritz interface said 'there have been 3 >>>repetitions of position', not the Johnny engine. Supposedly, the engine didn't >>>know about the draw at all. Neither the engine or the interface actually >>>_claimed_ the draw, either. >> >> >>The interface and engine are _one_ in this event. >> >>What precise wording does the engine have to use to satisfy you? >> >>IE "the game is a draw due to 3-fold repetition" (which it said) >>or >>"I claim a draw by 3-fold repetition". >> >>I am unaware of any specific wording requirements. Just "this is a >>3-fold repetition" is enough when I TD a tournament. I have even had >>players point at the board, hold up 3 fingers, and call me over. That's >>good enough. >> >>But enough of this trying to separate the engine from the GUI> We are >>talking about a "chess program" specifically here. Without the GUI it >>is not a chess player since it can't communicate. So trying to separate >>them doesn't fly. The ICGA let this nonsense happen when they chose to >>allow shared GUIs, and shared opening books, and so forth. They get >>exactly what they deserve as a result. > >I don't wish to be accused of "splitting hairs," but in this tournament it was >not a competition of software versus software. The hardware was an integral >part of the chess-playing machine. It was a machine vs machine competition >where "machine" implies hardware married to software. I completely agree. The hardware, the software, the GUI, the book are all part of the "computer chess player." > >One could go a step further and suggest that the operator was part of the beast, >but that would suggest something we don't wish to discuss. : ) The operator is a part of the thing. A part called an "I/O device". With _no_ decision-making authority whatsoever. He may only relay moves to/from the real board. > >Incidentally, as I pointed out earlier, "in the final analysis" it was a >competition between programmers. The machines were just their proxies. : ) That too. > >The tournament directors should have merely been "supportive," not >"authoritarian dictators." Just being logical and following the rules would have been enough. :) > >Bob D.
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.