Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:39:13 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 11:41:56, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 11:30:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 01, 2003 at 11:23:09, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Crafty has played over 1 million games on chess servers with no problems. We >>want the operators there in case there is a network issue that causes a >>disconnect, or a hardware problem that might require a reboot (very rare), and >>to discuss things with other programmers. We don't need operators to handle >>normal "problems" as they simply don't happen. > >Please forgive me for saying this, but: "In all due respect, playing your >engine on a chess server is simply not the same thing as playing in a chess >computer tournament. You might use similar technology but there are significant >differences in the two situations." > >Bob D. And what would those differences be? FIDE has had events on the net. CCT is a computer chess tournament that works just fine on the internet. The main difference is that there are no "operator errors" to contend with because there are no "operators". The server is the final arbiter with respect to time, draws, wins and losses. > >> >>> 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.