Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:54:53 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 12:27:14, martin fierz wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 09:41:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>Basically, I disagree with the reasoning that lead the ICGA to the decision, >>>but I disagree with all people that think the decision was unreasonable. >> >> >>That is simply an impossible statement to understand. > >this is so simple to understand that it's impossible to understand that you >don't understand it :-) > >we're back to logic class: >"bad reasoning A leading to some decision X" does not mean "decision X is >unreasonable". > >BTW, the arbiter's decision is always final in *lots* of activities, e.g. in >most team sports. it can be wrong, but it's the arbiter's decision. you have to >live with it... > >cheers > martin Objection. If you take into consideration that this case contained a chess position that was a draw due to 3-fold-perpetual. Also - the weaker player claimed that draw, but then the operator played on and wanted to throw away the draw. So this is simply forbidden by the rules since an operator can't play with the outcome of a game if the machine claims such a draw. At least this is a rule in computerchess. (1) That having said you are wrong that there is a possible _reasonable_ isue to get the decision of the TD. (2) If then GC says that he also dissent the reasons for the decision. (3) GC can't add that the decision might have another reasonable background. Because trivially there can't be a resonable way to such a solution because it is forbidden. Forbidden always tops the ingenious inventions of a possible reasonable way that led to such a false decision. So, yes, it seems as if Bob had to attend logic classes, but in real you are the uneducated beginner who tried to bully Bob. But Bob made no mistake because of the existence of the enforcing rule of 'passivity' of the operator. Let me add that a lively debate is always fun, but you must not become insulting as if a computer scientist and computerchess knowie like Bob would make beginner faults. The same I oppose the nasty vocabulary Pascutto is using towerds Bob. Man, these are kids in comparison to such a legend like Bob Hyatt. What is going on here? Are you all in the defense of something undefendable? Or is it something that should save the many programmers who just showed a mountain-high lack of civil courage in Graz. Even Amir Ban who looked through the whole case refused to save the honor of the TD and all the paticipating parties. All very mean and odd. Rolf
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.