Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:24:06 02/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2005 at 02:56:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 13, 2005 at 00:05:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 12, 2005 at 20:18:35, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2005 at 20:08:43, Peter Skinner wrote: >>> >>>>On February 12, 2005 at 19:59:34, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>>Maybe there was a language issue here, and when the author was asked if the game >>>>>was drawn, he thought the question was, "Did the engines agree to a draw?", >>>>>whereas in your mind the question was "Was a draw the final result?" >>>> >>>>There was no language issue. How much clearer can you state that the game is not >>>>a draw and is still in progress? >>>> >>>>Peter >>> >>>Looks like something that will have to be clarified in the rules of future CCTs: >>>The clocks must stop running before a draw is official. >> >> >>No, the game is not a draw until the chess server says it is a draw. No more, >>no less, because automatic interfaces are mandatory, not optional. And human >>intervention is forbidden, not required for draw claims. Etc. > >There is one possible exception. >If the position is position when there is no possible win because it is a >blocked pawn endgame and the server does not know that it is a draw the result >should be a draw by the rules of chess even if the flag of one side fell. > >Uri Can you quote me a FIDE rule that says that? The server understands the 50 move rule perfectly, as well as 3-fold repetition. With a 50 3 time control, the 50 move rule will work fine in limiting the length of the game... Or we could always have an "adjudication rule" added so that the TD, with the approval of _both_ program authors involved, could declare a game drawn rather than having it played out to the 50-move rule invocation.
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.