Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:22:56 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 04:03:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 17:49:59, Amir Ban wrote: > >>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 ? > >You can make a reasonable decision based on incorrect reasoning or >assumptions. And yes, that probably happened here as was very clear >during Mr. Zwanzgers explanation. > >>It didn't play any part in Zwanzger's desire to avoid a draw, either. > >How can you be so sure of that? He said he considered it unsportsmanlike >to claim the draw there. He explained that Jonny didn't know about 3 fold >rep. I find the relation logical. > >>What you are saying is that he couldn't claim a draw even if he wanted to, >>which is ridiculous. > >I'm not saying this at all. I'm just saying that the desire to play and >and the decision by the TD to allow this (well, not exactly, see above) >are defensible from my point of view, but only so because the engine didn't >know about 3 fold repetition. > >There would be no defending the ruling in any other case, but I consider >this a sufficient reason to play on. There come in other factors here like the >distinction between engine and interface and so on and so on, but those >are more like holy wars that'll never get a decision satisfying everyone, >despite at least 20 people here claiming that the matter is very clear and >reaching conclusions opposite each other. > >I'll give an example that's very close: > >Junior isn't having a lucky day and gets into a lost KNNKP ending vs an >amateur engine running under the ChessBase GUI. Suddenly, the amateur >announces Mate in 49 of out tablebases, but your opponent frowns and >realizes this is the CB GUI and not his engine (which doesn't support >tablebases at all). He requests to take back the move played by the GUI, >disable tablebases in GUI, and let the engine try to find the mate on its >own. > >Of course you know the engine can never find this mate on it's own, >so if you allow it you have a draw and if you refuse you get mated and >lose the chance for the world title. > >Do you consider it reasonable to allow him to do this? I do. NO. Here's why. If you set the wrong time control and _then_ start the game, you are stuck. Otherwise I would set a blitz time control and leave it active until the game reaches an important stage. I'd then go back to the normal time control and use the extra time I have built up to hopefully find a way to win. Unacceptable operator influence. Whether to allow such a GUI to be used is a different issue that needs to be addressed. But it has needed addressing for 5 years now and the ICGA has ignored it. You definitely don't address it in the middle of a tournament, in a critical game. > >But not everyone agrees, obviously. > >-- >GCP
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.