Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:23:09 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. My understand is that the operator is there for a good reason similar to why a wise tournament director must be there. Chess computer tournaments are still evolving and humans need to be there to correct for errors or oversights of the programmers. When the available rule set fails to properly cover a new situation, humans must get involved. Hopefully, their actions will be reasonable. [Throwing a draw away would not be reasonable.] Bob D.
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.