Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:45:14 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 12:51:49, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 12:39:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 11, 2003 at 11:44:32, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On December 11, 2003 at 09:46:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 11, 2003 at 01:09:24, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 10, 2003 at 17:59:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 15:14:01, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It didn't know how or when to claim it and it didn't claim it! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe one could argue that if the chess player displays a window >>>>>>that says "3-fold repetition detected" that it would be safe to say >>>>>>it is "claiming" a repetition draw. >>>>>> >>>>>>To claim otherwise is ridiculous at best... >>>>>> >>>>>>Again, the FIDE rulebook has no "required text" for claiming a >>>>>>draw. It has a _procedure_ defined however. >>>>> >>>>>Of course, as it isn't mandatory!:o) >>>> >>>> >>>>You are sadly mistaken. If I claim a 3-fold repetition, as Jonny did by >>>>popping up a window making the claim, it _is_ mandatory. My opponent has >>>>no veto right. The TD verifies the repetition and the game is _over_. >>> >>>Hyatt I know this, so I'm not mistaken! Yes in the case of Jonny you have a >>>valid point, but I'm right that it doesn't _automatically_ mean draw, unless >>>you're a bloodly computer programme! Computers can't decide, people can, and can >>>avoid claiming the draw if they wish. >>> >>>I may not programme chess, but I know chess!! >> >>Then why in the hell are you continuing the discussion. Nobody has said >>that 3-fold repetitions are "automatic". _everybody_ has said that if a >>program points it out, it is not debatable. Jonny said "3-fold repetition >>detected". That makes the game a draw. That has what this entire discussion >>has been about. In ICGA events, humans have _zero_ say-so about how a game >>is played. Yet in this game a human overruled the computer, refused to claim >>the draw, and lost. That is against the rules. Yet the TD allowed it to >>happen, and after it was pointed out, he allowed it to stand. >> >>This was wrong, and will continue to be wrong unless it is corrected. > >Whatever....than Frans and Stephen and and....will also have to change their >positions, they didn't want to. Frans was apparently put in an untenable position. He could say (a) the game should have been a draw. In doing so he would become the instant WCCC event. He could say (b) the result was ok and I won't protest to make me winning look bad, so let's do the playoff. He should _never_ have had to make that decision. It was lose-lose... > >Your arguement is really for the participants not me! > >Frankly, I don't give a damn, at this point.
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.