Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 06:54:32 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
My god Rolf, >> 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. [snip] >>This is a sound explanation >Err, it's NOT a sound explanation. it is - according to the FIDE rules a draw must be claimed befor the move is made on the board - the player / operator must claim the draw, walk to the TD and say the engine plans to play this and that and then it is draw because of 3 fold repetition. This is sound. And Johannes DID NOT CHEAT ! He did even ASK Jaap if they can play on (but it seems that Jaap did not understand it) When Jaap arrives at the board the move already had been made - so according to Fide rules only Shredder can claim the draw now - but neither the engine nor his GUI did see the draw. So according to FIDE rules this is a sound explanation for the decision. Johannes decision was very human - a point that you absolutely do not understand. But - and I have explained it to you - the TD should have decided different in that game because Johannes was not allowed to overrule the engine here. But that was NOT CHEATING... >>So Johannes did a mistake here - it is an understandable mistake, >No, it is absolutely NOT understandable. The reason for that below. Well, for you for sure not... when will you ever understand such things... > Zwanzger is a very good chessplayer and he knew very well the danger of the > repetition. It is a clear cheat if he decides pro Shredder against other > programs. Also considering that his own prog had nothing to do with the top. > One could insinuate that he wanted to manipulate a little bit at least. A > clear violation of the rules. TD had no choice to state the draw. Probably > with a warning to Zwanzger. He was not aware that he is violating any rule - that was the reason why he did try to speak with Jaap... At the point Jaap arrives at the board the mistake was already made. But in the discussion afterwards they should have changed the result to a draw. Besides, it is not unusual that games are played a bit longer - when I did take a look at the position initially I could not see a mate or anything... And sometimes I also play on because I want to see how long does it take to my own engine to see the mate - also for the spectators which maybe have the same limited chess knowledge then me it is better to play a bit on so that the result is more obvious. 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.