Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 05:15:52 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 07:50:13, Sune Fischer wrote: >Yeah, and now you're starting the whole thing up again. I blame Rolf :) >Would Shredder have asked to play on? Absolutely not, no way! Shredder did not ask to play on either in this case. But of course, happily accepted when it was offered to do so. >Would the TD have said Shredder couldn't claim the draw because the interface >did it? Of course not, this is the way Shredder is designed! > >So what remains is the naked fact: >one guy wants to give the win to his opponent, should the TD allow that? > >>The fact that the Jonny engine did not know about 3 fold repetitions, and >>the draw was claimed by the interface, is IMHO sufficient reason to play on. > >If Jonny can play in that interface then Jonny can use everything the interface >offers: the egtbs, an opening book and draw claims. > >In any case one shouldn't suddenly go about making up rules in the middle of >the tournament: "Oh BTW you can't claim a draw because you are using an >interface that does it for you...." >This should have been said _before_ the tournament. The rules are actually made up during the players meeting (I dislike _THAT_ certainly a lot). You are also saying something completely different than I am. I am saying that I consider the reasoning defensible. I did not say that every engine HAS to claim the draw by itself, even when the interface was designed to do that. Can you understand the difference? Jonny is a winboard engine btw :) >What I don't understand is why some choose to keep defending the decision. I will state againt what I said: I wouldn't have done the same thing, and I recommend the next time something else is done. But I do not believe it was unreasonable. You obviously disagree about the latter. >You would never expect team Fritz or anyone else to appeal such a decision. >IMO they risk losing too much prestige over that. Well, they _know_ they get the world title if they do. I don't know about other programmers, but I'd certainly appeal a decision if I thought it was nonsense. >The TD's decision wasn't right just because no one appealed, you can't use that >as indicator at all, I'm quite sure some of the other teams must have frowned >quite a bit over that decision. That is true - funnily enough Amir Ban had the most issues with it. >>Most of the 'problems' in that decision seem to be the people who have >>a personal axe to grind with the ICGA and seem to think this was a nice >>opportunity to show their know-it-all skills. > >Sorry, you can't undermine my arguments _that_ easily. :) It was meant towards the people that you can't seem to sanely argue with over this matter :) Matter of fact remains that for the participants this issue was dead once the tournament was over but the 'spectators' will probably keep discussing over it for the next few years. >Rules shouldn't be flexible like that, rules should be clear in advance so you >avoid the sour grapes and lengthy discussions. I'm not so sure about this. >The problem in this case is the judgement was biased but there is no way to >prove it was biased or unbiased because it's not supported in a rule which >applies to everyone. I'm not so sure about this either - I do not want to guess what went through Jaap's head at that time. -- 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.