Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 04:37:14 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Bob, >> 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. no, finally, at least as I had understood the reasoning, Jaap said that the game was still in progress and the draw was not claimed at the board by the operator - at least not correctly because the move was played -> That was the reason for him to not count it as a draw... I think all this stuff with the info-window etc. is nonsense and just a try to confuse everybody. This is a sound explanation - but of course I agree with you that the decision anyway is not correct - a) it's against the rules that the operator has such a big influence because the engine clearly takes the draw and b) it's also against the spirit of rules... In the discussion I did ask Jaap about who is playing here - is it the engine, is it the gui or is it the operator... or a combination ? In my opinion with the current rules it is mainly the engine and the gui - the operator should only play a passive role... and that was not the case in that game. So Johannes did a mistake here - it is an understandable mistake, think about the situation, you play against an engine that might lose the title in this game because of such a stupid bug - and it was his first tournament... As I said several times I would have been happy that in such a situation Quark would take the decision out of my hands because it would claim a draw to WinBoard and refuse to play on. Anyway, the TD should have corrected that mistake maken by the operator by declaring it as a draw... bugs are part of the competition and I have no doubt that Stefan would have not complaint when the decision of the Jury would have been different. There were even some rumours that the ICGA was thinking of disqualifing Johannes. That was beyond my understanding - we are humans and we make mistakes - therefor we have the TD to guide us through them. So Johannes decision was very fair, but wrong - TD should have corrected it. Greets, Thomas
This page took 0.01 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.