Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:10:09 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2003 at 09:15:44, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Bob, > >just my two cents about the ICGA decision: > >as you may remember and as given in the explanation of the ICGA about the >decision the draw was not declared at the correct point and the Jury thinks that >then according to the FIDE rule the game can't be a draw. This is wrong. The chess program said "this is a 3-fold repetition". If you use their reasoning, _no_ program claimed a repetition or whatever correctly, yet they were accepted _every_ time. This is just after-the-fact justification for a really ugly decision. > >To me that explanation was sound. It can be made that way... > >But of course I do not agree to it - in my opinion the operator has to be as >passiv as possible and must try to do the best for his engine - but in a passive >way. (Like making the moves fast enough etc.) Afaik at least one person of the >Jury had the same opinion. > >Let's think the other way: What to do when the draw is NOT shown by any engine. >THEN I think it MUST be played on... But in the case we had in the 11th round >there was clearly stated that the engine DID take the draw, by a 0.00 score AND >by the information window... Correct, according to what I have read here... > >Shredder would have lost half a point due to a bug... Well, that is bad luck but >happens all the time... (As you mentioned already) > >So I definitely agree to the statement of Amir and I hope that for the next >tournament this will be defined in a way that everybody understands it. (In my >opinion it is already defined correctly in the rules, but there seem to be some >need for clarification... :) > >Greets, Thomas I think the rules are fine, they specifically spell out what the operator's responsibilities/limits are. The problem was with the TD, that didn't apply existing rules. Making the rules tighter won't do a thing if the TD refuses to enforce them... > >P.S.: So decision X with it's explanation Y is okay - but explanation Y seems >not to take care of the rule Z... :) Some more logic... :)
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.