Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:50:23 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 10:12:05, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 10:02:43, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>It had a draw score and played the drawing moves, so its intention was clear. >>The engine wanted the draw and the operator didn't allow it, that's the way I >>see it. > >If the bare engine would have been playing, what would have happened >is exactly what happened: the position would have been repeated until >either one deviated or it was a draw after all. In the actual game, >someone deviated. If the bare engine had been playing he would have had to add a few things the GUI normally takes care of. For UCI engines it is expected that the GUI handles certain (trivial) things. If you want to make a case you have to argue that the UCI protocol doesn't qualify for playing in WCCC, but I think that is an entirely different debate. >The operator reasoned: neither engine understands this is (claimable >as) a draw, so why should it be a draw? I disagree, one engine here showed by a draw score that it understood it was draw, it even played the right moves and the GUI claimed the draw. From what I can tell the whole thing worked as designed for Jonny. -S. >-- >GCP
This page took 0.04 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.