Author: Amir Ban
Date: 14:49:59 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 14:26:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 10:59:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>"An operator can only (1) type in moves and (2) respond to request from >>the compute for clock information." >> >> >>How, from that rule, does it become possible for the operator to say "Hmm. >>the engine claims a draw, > >The engine didn't claim a draw. > >Unless you consider the interface part of the engine, but that's IMHO >another discussion. If the Jonny engine would have claimed the draw >I would agree with you but given the facts I consider the ICGA decision >also acceptable. > But this division between engine and interface never came up in the considerations of Herik, Levy and the rest throughout their deliberations. It was suggested as a justification *after* the final decision. If the TD paid no attention to this detail, how can it make his decision right ? It didn't play any part in Zwanzger's desire to avoid a draw, either. What you are saying is that he couldn't claim a draw even if he wanted to, which is ridiculous. Amir
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.