Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 21:53:00 02/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2005 at 00:49:22, Matthew Hull wrote: >On February 14, 2005 at 00:43:17, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On February 13, 2005 at 23:58:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>The event went pretty smoothly, although I think we need more discussion about >_ZERO_ human intervention. Zero means ZERO, not almost-zero. >> >>This was raised before the tournament. >> >>I stated at the very beginning of the event that if someone wanted to manually >>draw or resign a game, they should come to me, let me look at the game, and if >>it was reasonable I would allow it. >> >>_Many_ people did this by the book. I even declined offers to draw due to >>material on the board, time remaining, Schroer's comments on the board. As >>jonnycomp knows, I asked him to play a few games out longer. He accepted my >>decision, played on, and took whatever result came out of it. Many did. Out of >>about 180 games, three incidents of not asking first happened. Not bad really. I >>would have preferred _zero_. >> >>I missed the SOS incident, or rather what that was all about. I was busy >>updating the results and uploading the webpages. There was a complaint made >>after the next round started, and the pairings were made so I couldn't do >>anything. In the next round Zappa offered a manual draw, and again there was a >>complaint about operator interference. Due to me not ruling on the SOS game, and >>the fact Zappa'a game was indeed a draw I decided that there was no harm done. I >>did issue a warning. >> >>I made it _very_ specific in the last round that if anyone offered a manual draw >>without coming to me first, I would forfeit the game. Some might have thought I >>was being harsh, but I was only enforcing the rules that 41 out of 44 >>participants followed by the book. >> >>Next year if I am allowed to be the TD, there will be much more strict rules >>regarding this. The program plays. Not the operator. It is the participant and >>should make all decisions regarding the game. > > >Make it part of the sign-up agreement form. Spell it out clearly. Give >examples of what's expected of each chess-playing system. Then, filling out the >form will be the tacit agreement to those rules, which can be cited in such >cases as happened, stifling the controversy before it even starts. The text could also be all caps, like a GPL notice. It could be a standard rider in all such events. All-caps would be like shouting, which might actually get through some of the thicker programmer skulls. ;) > >:) > > > > >> >>That is only my opinion though... >> >>Peter
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.