Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 12:49:03 12/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 18:50:23, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 30, 2003 at 09:48:34, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>On November 30, 2003 at 09:26:11, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 2003 at 08:58:10, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>> >>>>The "main" point is IMHO that Jonny and Shredder didn't implement the correct >>>>knowledge, but the fritz-gui, Jonny was playing with. >>>>I guess there was no explicite rule about the issue, if engine and external >>>>interface disagree. IMHO the engine is the boss here. >>>> >>>>Gerd >>> >>>Gerd, when the GUI shows the draw, and complains, even values the game >>>1/2-1/2 the operator has to stand up and search for the TD. >> >>Yes. >> >>>if the TD is not coming, and when he comes he still don't understands, >>>and after the game in the discussion still is not understanding what is going >>>on, >>>it is the operator and the TD that are in charge . >> >>Yes very "unlucky", but IMHO the final TD decision was right! >> >>> >>>The operator cannot make another move or another decision than the programs. >>> >>>he is not the boss, the program is. >> >>There is no atomic program. >>There is the Jonny engine and the fritz-gui. They disagree. The gui reports draw >>but did allow to play on. I interprete gui output, message box or whatever, as >>an option for the operator to claim a draw according to the rules. >> >>He should claim the draw if his engine agrees. >>But because Jonny had no clue about the draw, >>it is the correct decision to play on. >> >>Gerd > >You are confusing between what happened at Graz and what people on the Internet >said later to justify it. > >The question of whether it was interface or engine was never considered by the >TD. > >Amir Hi Amir, yes, thanks, still a bit confused. My wrong implication was about Gian-Carlo's statement, that Jonny didn't had the knowledge. http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?332067 I'm not quite sure whether i got the final reason exactly. Was it about the technical chain of events? Or finally, was it only about the text in the modal message-box "info: threefold repetition", as consired not according to FIDE rule 9.2. a), a draw-claim intending to force a 3-fold repetition? Due to the modality of the dialog, it was no pure status message which may appear in the status-bar of the board- or main window or in some other none modal status windows. User interaction was required to confirm the dialog. Did we have to be careful about dialogs icons in future events, <!> instead <i> ? Or even better a huge "stop" sign ;-) Btw. Congrats for your third place! I'll hope we'll meet in July. Cheers, Gerd
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.