Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:38:11 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 09:54:32, Thomas Mayer wrote: >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. Good that you do the usual confusing snipping and such tricks also once in this international forum, so everybody can see and judge what's going on. Such quoting makes no sense because nobody known what the explanation was you find sound and I find NOT sound. This is something BTW you learn in your studies, and it's annoying if I get corrected in such a twisty way. Not that it influenced any of my messages or its truth but it's disturbing for more unexperienced readers. Anyway. Let's take it as if you didn't know it better. The topic is worth it because you also were a member of the community in the WCCC. I saw that you were almost the only one who reported in the different internet groups and this is very thankful. > >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. Ok, but we dont have here the FIDE event. Look, these FIDE rules are also made in special for the human players who should not be distracted more than neccessary. These operators in a ICGA event are proxies for the machines and they can well discuss during their games. That doesn't disturb the machines. Therefore we have here the question, the only question, is it a 3-fold repetition or not. Jonny said it. And now, no matter what J. Zwanzger did or did NOT, this fact remains and it is the only important aspect for the solution of it. It IS a 3-fold, therefore it is a draw! EVEN if Zwanzger already played another move in the game. That is something neither Billings nor you seem to consider. That is a clear difference to human events. Because there if a player played on he would loose his right to claim a draw!! But NOT in such a match between machines. Jonny showed that it was a draw and the operator had the duty to proceed as ordered by the machine. No way to freely proceed in favor of Shredder. In fact that was a cheating. Because it favoured Shredder and disfavoured Fritz and Junior. Funny that you agree that it was wrong what he did but you refuse to accept the term cheating. More you overlook that it was a most dishonest behaviour. I admit that the TD gave his part to all this with his unclear position. > >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. As before - there is no FIDE tournament! All what you are doing - with a most sophisticated method - is searching for excuses for false behaviour and deciding. > >Johannes decision was very human - a point that you absolutely do not >understand. Objection! I would only accept his very human decision if he had brought a handkerchief with him to be prepared to help the crying opponent in case of possible bugs which would lose his chances for winning the title. Duh!!!!!! [Dont ask me from where I have the idea with that handkerchief! I'm just an ingenious communicator! I use it only when I am talking with you. :)] > >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... Good guy. We agree to not agree in this case. > >>>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. Excuse me. A chessplayer knows that the 3-fold-rep is always a good issue in case you have a lost game. I can't help you if you miss that. Also I dont accept excuses for BL Spieler Zwanzger in this case! He knew that he was throwing the game! > >But in the discussion afterwards they should have changed the result to a draw. So you disagree at least with Billings. Good to know that. > >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. Thomas, with a growing distance to the event I would expect that you could be more relaxed and objective. In every word you say I can smell that you are still caught in the mixture out of friendship and excitement about the details in chess and all that. As I said. For me you are the good exception who always gives us good reports. But in case of dissents you should be a better learner. Or do you think that your conditions are so totally different to the ones Bob had 30 years ago??? So, it is beyond my understanding why you treat him with so little respect. He WAS there, has DONE what you are doing today. And BTW he won a couple of titles. It would please me if you, and all others, could give him the respect he deserves. Rolf > >Greets, Thomas
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.