Author: Francesco Di Tolla
Date: 09:36:35 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 10:28:23, Robert Hyatt 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. > >Then what is a "draw claim"??? That should be agreed, but something like "the engine asks for a draw due to ..." or the like would be enough. "Info: 3-fold repetition" does not express the intention of the program. > >I have been a TD for 30+ years. I've run hundreds of tournaments, with >and without computer players. I don't have any specific wording that is >required to claim a draw. I have participated to international tournaments an I can assure you that if I wanted to ask for a draw I had to explicitly do it with the referee. If I call the refere and say "3-fold repetition" he can respond "So what you mean". >Nor do I find any such wording requirement in >my FIDE rule book. I have had a player look at me, hold up 3 fingers, and >motion me over. _That_ was a perfectly valid 3-fold rep draw claim. I looked >at the score sheed, and said "yes". No that was a draw by agreement due to the fact you knew he could go to the referee and ask for the application of the rule. If he did not this is just an agreement of the two of you. Of course this is a courtesy I would apply as well, but I would not execute my third move without the refree there and having expressed to him my intention clearly, cause my opponent could be less "gentleman" then you are and after the move was executed pretend to play on. This would not be the first nor the last time it happens. >The computer (the monitor, the cpu, the memory, the gui, the engine, the >opening book, the endgame tables, the disk drives, the keyboard, the mouse, >and so forth) said "this is a 3-fold repetition". Do you _really_ think it >better to say "I claim this is a 3-fold repetition". Or "I want to claim >a draw by the 3-fold repetition rule" or whatever? Sure that is what I said. I mean, I'm making a paradox of this issue. As a Shredder operator I would not have pretended to continue claiming my opponent did not formulate the request properly, since as you noticed almost no program odes it. But this should be fixed: thre should be a clear consesus oon how theprograms state the request. And somebody could complain that Fritz pop-up is not explicit enoguh. >"3-fold repetition" would be enough for _any_ sane person. In FIDE >events there are _no_ specific words required. In fact, I might not even >be able to speak to the arbiter directly, due to a language issue. I might >need to ask an interpreter to inform the arbiter of my claim. 3-fold repetiton is a generic statement about the position, as mate in 10 showed in a line. Should we argue that an engine noticing to be mated in 10 moves is resigning? What if the an engine would write a generice 3fold repetition in its evaluation line and continue it's analysis and play on. How should we interpret this? >Correct. The computer "player" said "this is a draw". >That's enough. no the word draw was not mentioned at all. >>Actually if we strictly follow FIDE rules the operator can ask a draw for 3-fold >>repetition only if the engine does the explicit claim > >That is wrong, there is no such FIDE rule at all. there is it is down there > Nor is there any FIDE rule that explicitly gives the wording > required to claim a 3-fold rep draw. that's to be clarified I agree >>"3.3 Only if the computer itself so instructs him may the operator offer a draw, >>or claim a draw by repetition." > >The "computer" did this. _clearly_. this is not clear to me. Please understand me, I wanted to underline the paradox that the whole issue is unclear to me. >What is a bug here? The gui says "this is a 3-fold repetition". It couldn't >be any clearer or any more correct there. to me it is not clear: is it asking or not to apply the rule, or stating something or what? >The operator can't say _anything_. That is the point. The operator is _not_ >part of the playing system. the opoerator must say something: he must go to the referee and say: my engine asks for the application of.... but this was not the case. >>Who could claim the oppposite? > >Any rational person? I'm not stating I would do that, I claim some could ask to follow a rule to such limit, that's the paradox I wanted to stress, I understand your "common sense" and agree with it, but sometimes clear rules prevent such misunderstandings.
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.