Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 08:36:28 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 11:23:09, Bob Durrett wrote: [snip] >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.] Given the fact that dozens of engines play 24h/day at ICC and other chess servers without problems, that argument is pretty weak. Having said that, I don't think that playing automatic is the _only_ solution, and I don't think that the ICGA even considers an automatic event. In computer tournaments which make use of operators, we would need _precise_ rules. The current FIDE rules simply don't cover the aspects of computer chess well enough. For example there just isn't any score sheet a computer can use and you can easily bring arguments for one or the other side when such situations come up. The sentence that operators are not allowed to interfere with the engines decisions also doesn't hold strictly. That would mean for example that a boring endgame would have to be outplayed completely and the operators can't agree to a draw. Etc etc etc 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.