Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:41:35 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 17:32:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On December 21, 2003 at 11:13:52, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>Hi Rolf, >> >>[I snip your nonsense because you simply does not want to understand] >> >>But I may add that one of the rule is that if something is not declared in the >>rules FIDE rules will be taken... Thats the point how the TD explains his >>decision... > >But the passivity "rule" means what? Did Zwanzger violate that rule? With the >bad intention to avoid that rule and hence he cheated. It's so simple. I do not support Zwanzger actions but I do not think that I can define his actions as cheating because I use that word for worse things. 1)Zwanzger did not lie about the facts. 2)He did not try to hide the facts. 3)I am not sure if he knew the rules of computer chess that the operator has to be passive as much as possible. I see cheating as lying about the facts or hiding important facts and it was not done in this case by Zwanzger. I define a player or an operator as a cheater if he tries to claim something that is simply a lie or tries to hide important information. Examples in human chess are when a player claim that he did not touch or did not left a piece because of wanting to win when he knows that it is a lie. In computer chess it can be playing a different move than the move that the program suggests because the operator knows that the move that the program suggests is a losing move and he hopes that nobody will notice. Uri
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.