Author: Francesco Di Tolla
Date: 09:18:20 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 11:29:36, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 04:18:00, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: > >>As far as I understand Jonny did not claim draw at all. >>Not because the program did not ask for it while the interface did, but becasue >>both the prorgam and interface NEVER did a draw claim. >> >>The interface showed a pop-up claiming "3 fold repetition" and this is NOT a >>draw claim. >> > >Your objection is one of symantics. You argue with the FORMAT of the message >and the choice of words used in the message. Did the tournament rule set >specify one and only one way the draw claim had to be worded? This is a >question of language only. it is not like that: there are many cases where even GM did have misunderstandings on such issues and both were pretending to be right. One was sure he was accepting a draw the other was thinking the opponend did resign. An the two did write dow different socres on the scorecard to be signed by the other. That's why the referee should be invoked. If during I game I state "I'm lost" it does not mean I'm resigning and my opponent cannot pretend to have a win. I have to stop the clock and say "i resign" in some language. So i think the computer program should do something similar: the cannot push the clock nor call the referee. But they can show a pop-up that instructs the operator to ask for a draw. The words "Info: 3-fold repetition" are not necessarely enough to me. Is in that case the program really asking to apply the rule of 3-fold repetition or is that a ganeric info? That's at least ambigous.
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.