Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:52:43 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 15:02:11, Matthew Hull wrote: >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. :) You will primarily get only self-serving answers to that question, it seems. :( > > >> >>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.