Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 10:03:04 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 17:49:59, Amir Ban 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. >> > >But this division between engine and interface never came up in the >considerations of Herik, Levy and the rest throughout their deliberations. It >was suggested as a justification *after* the final decision. > >If the TD paid no attention to this detail, how can it make his decision right ? > >It didn't play any part in Zwanzger's desire to avoid a draw, either. What you >are saying is that he couldn't claim a draw even if he wanted to, which is >ridiculous. > >Amir This speaks volumes about the post-hoc arguments and 'logic'. Maybe someone should just install a fic server for the next one. Mistakes are made; it is human. Refusal to learn from them is stupidity. Frank
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.