Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:45:18 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 11:36:28, Daniel Clausen wrote: >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 Maybe, some day, Bob Hyatt's dream of a fully automated chess computer tournament will become a reality. That will only happen after innovation in chess computers has come to a complete standstill - - - i.e. stagnated, as in the middle ages. : ) 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.