Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 22:00:44 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 22:44:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 10, 2003 at 19:54:43, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 10, 2003 at 17:40:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2003 at 08:22:22, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2003 at 03:22:44, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 21:18:39, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>FWIW, I have the highest arbiter certification awarded by the Chess Federation of Canada: National Tournament Director. >>>>>> >>>>>>You've started what has turned out to be an enormous thread, and you've openly >>>>>>stated your credentials in doing so. Reading the responses, my sympathies lie >>>>>>with the other posters. I would like to ask, however, that you defend your >>>>>>perspective. If you truly believe that those who disagree need to reexamine the >>>>>>rules or their own logic, this shouldn't be hard to do. >>>>>> >>>>>>Roger >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps after reading the responses he realizes he's wrong. :) >>>>> >>>>>-Peter >>>> >>>>I doubt it. He posted due to a request, and wasn't intending to fight about it. >>>>Besides, he's been treated with contempt! Why should he be bothered to reply, >>>>only to be attacked by a pack of wolves? >>>> >>>>Terry >>> >>> >>>He was attacked with facts and experience. I suspect he recognizes the concept >>>of "untenable position" pretty well... >> >>The _key_ word here is _attacked_ and that isn't the correct way to present your >>facts. It's insultive, and I doubt he intented to argue regardless of how the >>facts were presented. >> >>Although, I have no doubt he could make strong arguements that would have led to >>the suffocation of the board. So what we be the point? > > >_I_ did not attack anyone. So I don't know what you are talking about. You were not too friendly to say the least, and others were worse. He >presented a conclusion that was mired in inaccuracies and bad assumptions >(He assumed FIDE rules were used when they are not.) His errors were pointed >out by me and several others. Yes, most who don't know a tenth what he knows! BTW the FIDE Rules should be enforced, and since they aren't in all situations, this should be changed. If he made an error it was within the context of the ICGA rules. He's right about the CC Olympiad. He's an expert at the highest level as a TD. BTW did you check his credentials? He's no rookie, he's had plenty of experience. He really does know what he can and can't do. He's a programmer like yourself, and has developed Poki, the worlds top Poker Programme, and he is computer scientist with a PHD and to top it off a Canidate Master, who has arbitrated many high level tournaments, including computer chess. If he had caught the error himself, he would have called Shredder vs Jonny a draw, unless the ICGA said differently. But he pointed out that 3rd repeat does not have to be a draw, however in the case of ICGA he normally wouldn't have the right to ignore the proplem or make an official decision on his own to say play on. But since the game wasn't caught in time he can rule with the body of the ICGA, if everyone is compliant to say the win stands, which apperently he and they and all the rest were. In cases where there is really big problems, he's right that as an arbitor he does have a say, even in the ICGA if the ICGA allows him to exert his authority. However, this can be argued till the Cows Come Home. > >He should hardly expect to waltz in, make some comments that are really not >relevant to what we are talking about, and waltz out without any counterpoints >being made. He sure can, if he was asked to post the ICGA decision! And he did! As far as FIDE Rules are concerned, he can enforce them and if Computer Chess is exempt from FIDE Rules, that should change as of now! It's absurd that a computer can't be subjected to the Official Rules of Chess! Third Repeat is the most tricky rule in chess and isn't mandatory, unless the draw is claimed. For computers this hasn't been addressed properly within the ICGA. Three fold repition of position is IMO the hardest rule to make clear, even more so than en passant! It's of course optional too, and in this case computers haven't a problem in this area.
This page took 0.01 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.