Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 09:51:49 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 12:39:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 11:44:32, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 11, 2003 at 09:46:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 11, 2003 at 01:09:24, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2003 at 17:59:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 15:14:01, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>It didn't know how or when to claim it and it didn't claim it! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I believe one could argue that if the chess player displays a window >>>>>that says "3-fold repetition detected" that it would be safe to say >>>>>it is "claiming" a repetition draw. >>>>> >>>>>To claim otherwise is ridiculous at best... >>>>> >>>>>Again, the FIDE rulebook has no "required text" for claiming a >>>>>draw. It has a _procedure_ defined however. >>>> >>>>Of course, as it isn't mandatory!:o) >>> >>> >>>You are sadly mistaken. If I claim a 3-fold repetition, as Jonny did by >>>popping up a window making the claim, it _is_ mandatory. My opponent has >>>no veto right. The TD verifies the repetition and the game is _over_. >> >>Hyatt I know this, so I'm not mistaken! Yes in the case of Jonny you have a >>valid point, but I'm right that it doesn't _automatically_ mean draw, unless >>you're a bloodly computer programme! Computers can't decide, people can, and can >>avoid claiming the draw if they wish. >> >>I may not programme chess, but I know chess!! > >Then why in the hell are you continuing the discussion. Nobody has said >that 3-fold repetitions are "automatic". _everybody_ has said that if a >program points it out, it is not debatable. Jonny said "3-fold repetition >detected". That makes the game a draw. That has what this entire discussion >has been about. In ICGA events, humans have _zero_ say-so about how a game >is played. Yet in this game a human overruled the computer, refused to claim >the draw, and lost. That is against the rules. Yet the TD allowed it to >happen, and after it was pointed out, he allowed it to stand. > >This was wrong, and will continue to be wrong unless it is corrected. Whatever....than Frans and Stephen and and....will also have to change their positions, they didn't want to. Your arguement is really for the participants not me! Frankly, I don't give a damn, at this point.
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.