Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:38:27 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 14:32:03, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 10:50:23, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>>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. > >The engine did not understand it was a draw. It scored 0 because it saw >the position was repeated(*), but this is NOT the same as a draw. > >If Sjeng shows 0.00 in a losing position against you, can I claim >a draw? Dont think so. > >(*) any number of times I'll repeat then. The engine doesn't have to "understand" because it is playing in a GUI that "understands" for it. It understands the first repetition and the GUI handles it from there, perfectly legal by design. Maybe he was using the adaptor because he knew that under winboard his engine wasn't fully functional, so he used a solution that would patch his wholes. Nothing wrong with that since the UCI is also a recognized solution. Whether he is using a WB engine with adaptor under the Fritz GUI or playing with the engine directly in WB isn't important, as long as the solution works. Shredders solution did not work, Jonny's did work, very big difference here. (is this consistent enough for you?) -S. >-- >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.