Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:46:52 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 02:43:38, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> - Darse. > >A question;What do either of you hope to achieve with this type of scurrilous >discourse? >All I see is an unending cycle of contempt. This will lead nowhere. >I doubt you'll answer me Bob, but I hope at least Darse will. >I can see both sides of this arguement, and it isn't something I'd desire either >way, but the ICGA made it's ruling and it appears final. >BTW I carefully read the rules, and there is a bit of wiggle room to support >Darse's claims. IOW there is just enough ambiguity, however small, to make an >interpretation of the aforementioned rules. >Yet, I see how easy it is to support your claims, not that Darse is necessarily >wrong, but has a far more difficult task for him to prove his claims, and I wish >he'd do a better job in clarifying why there is wiggle room. In number 5 there >is more cans or mays, than musts. > >It's a very fine line, but it's there. I think the wording and certain >modifications are in order, to prevent this sort of arguement, IMHO. > >Terry I'll give you the _same_ answer I gave him. The TD is obligated to do the following, in order, when a dispute happens: (1) apply the tournament rules if they fit the circumstance(s) as it happens. (2) apply past precedent if the rules have an ambiguity and similar circumstances have come up previously and you have already reached a conclusion and applied that conclusion. (3) look at the rules, the spirit of the rules, the spirit of the event, and try to figure out what the original goal of the event and rules was, and then try to find an interpretation of the rules that upholds this "spirit". In the WCCC event, (1) and (2) are all that is needed. Because (2) had been done dozens of times in previous rounds when programs claimed a draw, using the _same_ GUI, and those draw claims were upheld. You can _not_ then go to a later game in the same event and rule 180 degrees out of phase with your previous ruling, just to justify a stupid mistake that was made. Yet this happened. They accept all draw claims up to this point, then claim that this claim was not made correctly, and then they penalize the _program_ for the operator's mistake, when rules 5 and 6 explicitly spell out the duties of the operator and the remedy when the operator fouls up.
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.