Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 12:02:11 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 14:45:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 10:16:51, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>This is too subtle for me. It is an event between machines with the operator >>acting as a go between (a mistake in my view). The machine said draw, >therefore the operator must claim the draw. As far as I can see it just >>another 'move' indicated by the machine and the operator has no right to move >>for the machine. > >By the same reasoning, the machine claimed the draw incorrectly, so >the operator has no right to claim the draw correctly, so he had no choice >but to play on (or resign). Are you saying that if the Johnny operator _had_ claimed the draw as indicated by the software, that it could not have been allowed anyway? Would it have been allowed or not? Honest answer only, please. :) > >QED > >-- >GCP
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.