Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 14:38:11 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 16:45:37, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 15:14:00, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 14:45:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 10:16:51, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>This is too subtle for me. It is an event between machines with the operator >>>>acting as a go between (a mistake in my view). The machine said draw, >therefore the operator must claim the draw. As far as I can see it just >>>>another 'move' indicated by the machine and the operator has no right to move >>>>for the machine. >>> >>>By the same reasoning, the machine claimed the draw incorrectly, so >>>the operator has no right to claim the draw correctly, so he had no choice >>>but to play on (or resign). >>> >>>QED >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>I do not understand what you are saying. >> >>My point is based on the following: >> >>1.The contest was between machines. > >No, between chess engines. ;-) > >>2.The machine in question was the entity that was the engine plus the chessbase >>GUI. > >OK, but the engine was playing, not the chess GUI. This where we part company..... (It chose book moves, I believe.). > >>3.It would have been better if the machines played without human interference, >>but failing this the operator should not have been able to influenece the >>result. > >This was allowed as the operator should have been the one to ask the TD to be >allowed to resign...see Darsen post which is complete... > >>4.The machine claimed a draw (ie its 'move' was draw). > >No, the machine did not claimed a draw. The GUI advised that there was a 3-moves >repetition. This is not a draw claim. >Since the programmer can set the draw value in it's program. If the setting is >accept a draw only when the score is -50, than the GUI showing a 3 moves >repetition would be ignored by the engine...so this is not a draw claim, but >only a info display... >It is therefore wrong to claim that an info advising a 3 moves repetions is an >automatic draw. The program should state clearly "I am going to play "..." which >will draw the game according to FIDE rule..." this was not done...so the >operator could not force the draw, nor ask for it... > >>5.Therefore a draw should have been the result. > >No, see above... > >> >>So I have missed the point as to why the machine claimed the draw incorrectly. > >Did not claim a draw at all! > >>I was working on the premise that the GUI (part of the entered machine) said >>draw (point 4). Is this wrong? > >Yes, I hope now it is clear. >> >>Frank > >Sandro
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.