Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:11:44 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 07:36:14, Darse Billings wrote: > >I have been asked to contribute my views regarding the Shredder vs >Jonny game in Graz. (I was in Graz during the WCCC, and I've been >involved in similar 3-fold repetition situations in the Computer >Olympiad. FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded >by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director.) > > http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1335 > >This is an interesting situation, but the ruling was entirely correct. > >The actual circumstances made the decision clear. Anyone who cannot >see this needs to check their logic or their knowledge of the rules. > >The hypothetical issue is more interesting: whether the operator has >the right to decline an opportunity to draw. > >Some people have asserted that the operator does not have that right. >They are wrong. > >Since the operator is given the right to claim a draw on behalf of >the program, the natural corollary is that it is *not obligatory* >for the operator to do so. I disagree with your assumption. The operator should not be part of the game. It is a computer-computer game. The fact that he is not allowed to resign on behalf of the program also suggest that he should not be part of the game. The target is to do the operator's part as minimal as possible. I do not know if the operator is allowed to claim a draw on behalf of the program when the program does not claim a draw but even if he is allowed to do it then I can explain that not allowing the operator to do it may also not prevent operator's influence because in this case when both programs ignore the 50 move rule the if both programs use similiar time then the faster operator may win on time. Uri
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.