Author: Darse Billings
Date: 20:05:56 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 21:11:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >5. An operator error made when starting a game or in the middle of a game >can be corrected only with the approval of the Tournament Director. If an >operator enters an incorrect move, the Tournament Director must be notified >immediately. Both clocks will be stopped. The game must then be backed up >to where the error occurred. Clocks will be corrected and the settings at >the time when the error occurred will be reinstated using whatever >information is available. Both sides may then adjust their program >parameters with the approval of the Tournament Director. The Tournament >Director may allow certain program parameters to be changed. > >6. All monitors must be positioned so that the operator’s activities are >clearly visible to the opponent. An operator may only: [a] enter moves, >and [b] respond to a request from the computer for clock information. >This latter activity must be observed by the Tournament Director or >his designate. If an operator needs to enter other information, it must >be approved ahead of time by the Tournament Director. The operator may >not query the system to see if it is alive without the permission of >the Tournament Director. Neither of these rules pertain to the situation at hand. I quoted the rules that do. >>A pop-up window indicating a third occurrence of position is not >>the same as claiming a draw on that account. > >Certainly it is. The ICGA says otherwise. Their opinion is the one that matters. That makes you wrong. You are also wrong on the basis of simple logic. And you know it. If you disagree with the ruling that they alone have the authority to make, then why not just say that you disagree, instead of making bogus arguments full of contradictions and irrelevancies? Your logic is incorrect. Perhaps because correctness has nothing to do with your agenda... >I will point out the _major_ flaw in your claim. Several other programs used >the Fritz interface. _all_ claimed the 3-fold repetition the same way. Do >you suggest that all of those were wrong? Either way, the final result was >incorrect. No, they were not wrong. They were made in the usual way: the operator is made aware of the opportunity to claim a draw, and does so. But in this case the operator chose otherwise, as has also happened many times in the past. Nothing has changed. >Yes. Because, as I asked earlier, _please_ quote the precise rule >and page number in your Official rules of chess from FIDE that specifically >specifies exactly what wording must be used when making a 3-fold repetition >claim. I'm waiting... The wording of FIDE Article 9 is amply clear. The rules do not cover every possible eventuality, nor can they, nor do they attempt to. That is also in the rules, BTW. They are guidelines to be interpreted (when necessary) by fair and impartial arbiters. You are neither. If you prefer to play fast and loose with the rules, fine. You might even get away with it. But it is not advisable when dealing with contentious participants. In that case it is better to follow them a bit more closely. Did you wish to set a time limit on this pointless discussion? Since you have posted more than 100 times vs my 5, I claim that your flag has fallen. You've also been mated. Better luck next game. - Darse.
This page took 0.02 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.