Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:20:15 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 22:38:45, Nicholas Cooper wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 14:26:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 10:59:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>"An operator can only (1) type in moves and (2) respond to request from >>>the compute for clock information." >>> >>> >>>How, from that rule, does it become possible for the operator to say "Hmm. >>>the engine claims a draw, >> >>The engine didn't claim a draw. >> >>Unless you consider the interface part of the engine, but that's IMHO >>another discussion. If the Jonny engine would have claimed the draw >>I would agree with you but given the facts I consider the ICGA decision >>also acceptable. >> >>-- >>GCP > >This whole interface/engine discussion seems ridiculous to me... > >If applied to humans, are we to say that the brain and body are the interface >and engine respectively and that, according to the proposed (IMHO illogical) >division, a human can't claim a draw by three-fold repetition using one's mouth >or hands, as these are part of the interface!!?? > >All I can see if a whole lot of illogical defences of a poor decision by the TD. FYI "Spock" the TD didn't know what was happening during the game, he didn't understand the question posed to him and consequently we have this non ending chase your tail type arguements. What would you have done, after the fact if you had to make a ruling with your peers? I think I know what you or any sensible person would have done. Nothing would change, Shredder would still be declared the WCCC.
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.