Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:08:30 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 14:56:43, Darse Billings wrote: >On December 21, 2003 at 05:47:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On December 21, 2003 at 03:52:44, Darse Billings wrote: >> >>>It is no more than _trivia_. It is *NOT* an official draw claim. >> >> >>But is the 3-fold repetition a draw or not? It is a draw, whether you claim it >>or NOT. > > >No, it isn't, actually. It's an opportunity to draw. Thanks for challenging my opinions. BTW so you have some more pics from the earlier homeland of your family and if yes could you send me some via email. I find them incredibly sad and inspiring. But now to the topics. - Oppoertunity in human chess or computerchess? If the machine announces repetition I thought that this is mandatory. It isn't? I think we have a misunderstanding here. It is objectively a draw in human chess but in computerchess it's mandatory a draw while human beings could well play on because of their ignorance. A machine is not a human being and is taken from its displayed information. Without any willing or intention involved. In special an operator cant play on when the machine said this is a 3-fold. Then the draw is mandatory. > > >>>It can even be the case that a draw is worthless to both players, >>>in which case a position might be repeated indefinitely until the >>>clock decides the outcome. >> >>Here is the top height of illogicical statements. Even a 12 y. old kid can >>understand that the continuing of such a repetition is nonsense. And that is >>exactly why the rules say, already after a three times repetition it is a draw. >>Officially a draw. > > >That isn't what the rules say. Perhaps it should be. > >If I were on the rules committee, I would vote in favour of >automatically declaring a 4-fold repetition to be a draw. >That could be taken care of by a referee program. Then >it would be up to the program to deviate if it wanted to >continue. > >We agree on how it should be, but that isn't the way things >currently are. We have another misunderstanding beause here you forget about the tradition in computerchess. See what Bob Hyatt has written. Further I have the impression that you misunderstand the meaning of these two draw cases in chess. What is a 2-fold and a patt for you in a chess game? For me it is both a last help for the losing party to draw the game. So a rep will always be claimed by the losing party. The winning party will always regard this as sort of oversight and stupidity that would hopefully not be discovered by the opponent. > > >>> He also could have made >>>the bogus claim that he wanted to continue in the hope of winning >>>due to a bug, and no one could argue that that was not possible. >> >>Objection. That would have been cheating, Sir! > > >No, it is his right to try to win. The draw claim is not mandatory. >You might think it is unethical, but others would see it as ethical >on higher grounds, or as simply poor judgement (he has a right >to that too). The arbiter's opinion is the one that matters. > >I would have allowed it. You wouldn't. Fine. The point is not what I would or would like. The question is what a 3-fold means. And it means that the position is a draw. Your conclusion above is therefore wrong because you should then also forbid the draw if the operator claimed it on the base of the displayed information of the machine. This is unacceptable. Could you give a few examples where you had proceeded like that in computerchess tournaments? Thank you. > > >>>Since it *is* legal to decline an opportunity to draw, >> >>No, it is NOT legal in computerchess! Or show us the rule that says exactly >>this! >> > >I have. Time wasted, perhaps. Sorry but I didn't know the rule and didn't read where you mentioned it. I thought that a 3-fold is also a draw in computerchess in case the machine announces it on its display. Again give us a couple of games where you decided to play on in case of 3-folds. Thanks. Rolf > > - Darse.
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.